Skip to main content

Full text of "Bulletin 2"

See other formats





DEC 29 1964 | 

STAr "t * 


Number 2 1962 

Digitized by ^jOOQle 


Dedication 3 

The Collection of Luristan Bronzes 


Agyptische Siegelamulette 


A Latial Iron Age Tomb-Group 

pAr oOran gierow 32 

Sculptures in the Throne-Hoist Collection 


Editorial and Distribution Office: 

Medelhavsmuseet, Storgatan 41, Stockholm 0, Sweden. 

Digitized by Tooele 

The Museum of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Antiquities 



Number 2 1962 

Published by The Museum of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Antiquities (Medelhavsmuseet) 

Digitized by LjOOQle 

Published with the aid of a grant from Humanistiska Forskningsr&det. 
© 1962 Medelhavsmuseet, Stockholm. 

Stockholm 1962 

Victor Pettersons Bokindustri AB 

Digitized by kjOOQle 

To his Majesty King Gustaf VI Adolf, 
the Museum's gracious patron, 
on account of his Jubilee in 1962. 

Digitized by ^jOOQle 

Digitized by 

The Collection of Luristan Bronzes 


In 1925 the Russian professor M. Rostowzeff 
published a bronze statuette, which he assumed 
was from Cappadocia in Asia Minor. Some 
years later (about 1930) similar statuettes and 
other objects of bronze began to pour in to the 
antique dealers in Teheran, and it became 
clear that these bronzes had been found in 
rifled stone cists with skeletons in the Luristan 
area in western Iran, south of Hamadan and 
Nehavand. During my excavations at Shah 
Tepe in 1933 I was able to purchase in Teheran 
and Ispahan a number (200—300) of similar 
bronze objects, a collection that was later added 
to by His Royal Highness the Crown Prince, 
later His Majesty King Gustaf VI Adolf, when 
travelling in Iran in 1934. 

As the graves had not been scientifically 
excavated, little is known about the conditions 
in which the various bronzes (and perhaps 
pottery) were found together and the position 
they had in the grave. A small number of 
undamaged Luristan graves appear, however, 
to have been investigated by the eminent speci- 
alists on Iran Sir Aurel Stein and Dr. Erich 

A large number of bronzes from Luristan 
were acquired in the 1930’s by various impor- 
tant museums in Europe and America, chiefly 

through antique dealers in Paris. Those which 
found their way to the Museum of National 
Antiquities in Stockholm and were later trans- 
ferred to the Medelhavsmuseet were, however, 
with few exceptions, bought in Iran. When the 
grave robbers in Luristan noticed that the 
demand for bronzes was increasing in Teheran, 
the destruction of the graves also increased. 
About eighty ’’duplicates” were acquired by me 
for the prehistoric collections of Cambridge 
University. A few Persian bronzes were pur- 
chased direct from dealers in Sweden. 

In Teheran the principal dealers were Nejat 
Suleiman Rabbi and Ibrahim Chenassa, both 
exceedingly obliging. The former even lent a 
samovar and a floor-rug for me to use during 
my excavations out on the steppes. 

The bronze objects acquired may be grouped 
as follows: 

1) Human statuettes (male and female). 

2) Animal statuettes, either single, or double 
in heraldic position, or as bridle mounts or 
pendant ornaments. 

3) Weapons, as short swords (daggers), spear- 
heads, axes, shield-bosses, club-heads, ar- 
row-heads, bronze handles. 

4) Bridles and other horse trappings. 

Digitized by ^jOOQle 


Fig. 1. Gilgamesh statuettes. Slightly enlarged . 


Digitized by ^jOOQle 

Fig. 2. Two-horned figure. 1:1 . 

5) Personal ornaments, as ear-rings, armlets 
and bracelets, bells and bronze clappers or 
pendants, ornamental pins, small bronze 
wheels, finger-rings, belts. 

6) Toilet accessories, as mirrors, pins. 

7) Bronze vessels. 

8) Bronze spits and other implements. 

Among the statuettes the so-called Gilgamesh 
statuettes hold a special place. They represent 
a man with a conical cap, who is grasping the 
necks of two serpents issuing from his waist. 
From the hips of his body issue two legs, some- 
times with tails. Why they have been named 
after the hero of the Babylonian Epic of Gil- 
gamesh, is difficult to say. It is beyond doubt, 
of course, that a Babylonian cultural influence 
had been operative among the equestrian peo- 
ple of Luristan. This is proved, for instance, 
by the cuneiform inscriptions occasionally seen 
on some of the bronze vessels. 

At least eight Gilgamesh statuettes were 
acquired. Among other human figures may be 
noted a tubular female figure with hands 
raised towards the breast, and a figurine in 
an awkward Chaplin posture. Rather curious 

Fig. 3. Human figurines. 1:1. 

Digitized by ^jOOQle 

is a two-horned little “imp” with a long nose, 
bulging eyes and arm-stumps. He was found 
with a whole lot of others. A female statuette 
has a centre horn with a loop on the back. 
Among the animal statuettes we observe a 
couple of quadrupeds (dogs?) with two heads 
facing in opposite directions and with a loop 
between them. Other animal statuettes show 

two confronted creatures in heraldic posture. 
Between them is fixed a hollow rod that was 
once mounted on a pin-like base. Among the 
weapons we notice a bronze dagger very similar 
to a gold dagger found in one of the graves 
of the kings at Ur in Mesopotamia. A usual 
type of bronze daggers— short bronze swords— 
exhibits a flat hilt with raised edges on both 

Digitized by ^jOOQle 

Fig. 5. Animal group (ibexes). 1:1. 

sides for wood or bone insets. Furthest down 
these edges widen into curved rims. Such dag- 
gers are dated by means of cuneiform names 
or for other reasons to the fourteenth to twelfth 
centuries B. C. The handles are otherwise 
varied, especially in the case of the part en- 
closing the blade. Blades of bronze daggers are 
altogether very numerous in the collection. 

A dagger with a vertically pierced pommel 
probably enclosing an inlay of organic material, 
is interesting. 

Spear-heads occur with and without socket, 
also loose tubular sockets including one with a 
“Janus head”. 

The bronze axes are a chapter by themselves. 
The Museum has primitive flat axes. An axe 
of that kind has two protuberances at the 
middle (lugged axe). Then there are picks with 
shaft-hole. Some of the shaft-hole axes with an 
elongated socket are fairly plain. Other bronze 
axes have a slanting socket with grooves that 
are prolonged into three or four spike-like 

Digitized by ^jOOQle 


Fig. 7. Axes , shield-boss , mace-heads . C. 1:4. 

Digitized by 

Fig. 8. Bridle. Slightly reduced. 

projections. A shaft-hole dagger axe is without 
an elongated socket but has double edges stand- 
ing at right angles to each other. 

Furthermore, we will here mention bronze 
plates of various kinds (up to 27.6 cm in dia- 
meter), probably mounts for shields, and also 
club-heads and club-handles. Some of the club- 
heads are tubular and spiked, others rounder. 

The bronze bridles are also interesting. They 
suggest that an equestrian people lived in 
Luristan. We have, unfortunately, no informa- 

tion about the presence of horse skeletons in 
the graves. A selection of Luristan bridles from 
different collections has been made by Hanns 
A. Potratz of Hanover in Prahistorische Zeit- 
schrift, Volume 1941—42. It is entitled “Die 
luristanischen Pferdegebisse”. The Medelhavs- 
museet has five specimens, unfortunately only 
of Potratz’ simplest types with a snaffle of the 
simplest model; the bridle thus consists of two 
linked bars, plain or twisted, with rings at the 
ends and cross-guards, sometimes furnished 


Digitized by ^jOOQle 

with loops. The more elaborate bridles have 
cheek-plaques in the shape of animal figures 
with a hole in the middle. We possess a couple 
of these in the form of horses and pigs. 

Among the personal adornments we note 
solid armlets and bracelets of sheet-bronze, 
neck-rings, finger-rings, ear-rings and pendant 
ornaments, belts and belt mounts, bronze 

wheels, and pins of various kinds. We have 
thick, solid bronze rings with ornaments (ankle- 
ring?, troth ring?), a neck-ring with coiled 
ends, an armlet of sheet-bronze with pierced 
ends, rolled spirals, armlets with finials of 
dogs’, horses’ or web-footed birds’ heads (as 
well as purely stylized heads), twisted armlets 
and also an armlet of iron, and a decorated 

Figs. 9— JO. Cheek-plaques of bridles. 1:1. 


Digitized by 


Fig. 11. Bells. 1:1. 

finger-ring of broad bronze band. The armlet 
of iron is likely to date from the time immedi- 
ately preceding the year 1000 B.C. 

Belonging to the personal adornments are 
also small figures of dogs with a loop on the 
back and ornamental pins with heads in the 
shape of ducks, poppy-like fruits, round discs, 

The ring-shaped ear-rings are sometimes 
decorated with knobs. 

The personal adornments also include the 

open-work bells furnished with loops and the 
small bronze wheels with up to eight spokes. 

Finger-rings were also made of bone. The 
club-heads were made both of bronze and 

A group of bottle-shaped bronzes with a long 
neck are assumed to have served as bases or 
stands for Gilgamesh statuettes. 

Our collection further comprises about thirty 
vessels of sheet-bronze. Three of these are 
characterized by a long lip extending from the 

Digitized by ^jOOQle 

Fig. 12. Bracelet with finials of animals * heads 
(boar?). Diam. 7.9 cm. 

Fig. 13. Bracelet with finials of animals* heads . 
Diam. 7 cm. 

Fig. 14. Bracelet with finials of birds. Diam . 6.3 cm, 

Digitized by 

Fig. 15. Bronze vessels. Scale 1:3, in the foreground 1:2. 


Digitized by 


mouth. One of them (from Khakavand) is 
decorated besides with a ring of convex bubbles 
around a projecting breast below the lip. In 
addition, there are half a dozen hemispherical 
bronze bowls and related bronze pans with 
handles. Some are decorated. Notable are 
“cylindrical” drinking-vessels with concave 
walls and sometimes a handle. A cup with 
pointed bottom and handle at mouth is less 
usual Some of the vases have a projecting 
sharp rim and above it a cylindrical neck; 
others are divided at the middle by raised lines, 
which separate body and neck. 

Some of the bowls are, as mentioned, orna- 
mented. It sometimes happens in Iran that ge- 
nuine bronze vessels are supplied by the antique 
dealers with figures to make them more 
desirable. It is annoying when these figures are 
taken from an art 2,500 years later. 

Forms resembling those of the bronze vases 
occur at the same time also in clay. 

In the case of the Luristan bronzes agreement 


T. J. Arne, Luristan and the West. Eurasia Sep- 
tentrionalis Antiqua, Vol. 9 (1934). 

-Speglar fr&n Luristan. Kulturhistoriska studier 
tUlagnade Nils Aberg. Stockholm 1938. 

- Keulenkopfe, Szepter und Handgriffe von Luris- 
tan. Prussia, Band 33, Heft 1—2. Konigsberg 

~ Klappem und Schellen aus Luristan. Serta 
Hoffilleriana. Zagreb 1940. 

- Luristanbronsema. Fomiransk kultur, Riksantik- 
varieambetets och Statens hist, museums utstall- 
ningar nr 2, (Stockholm) 1940. 

Bronzen uit Loeristan, Collectie E. Graeffe. Ge- 
meentemuseum, ’S-Gravenhage 1954. 

A. Godard, Les bronzes du Luristan. Ars Asiatica, 
Vol. XVII, 1931. 

F. Han Car, Kaukasus-Luristan. Eurasia Septen- 
trionalis Antiqua, Vol. 9 (1934). 

has not yet been reached as regards either the 
people to which they belonged or their chrono- 
logy. The influences from Mesopotamia are 
obvious from the middle of the third millenium 
B.C., and armlets with animal head finials cor- 
respond with gold rings from Darius’ time, c. 
500 B.C. The beautiful bronze swords, or 
daggers, here mentioned, may, it seems, be 
traced back to c. 1400—1200 B.C. Thus the 
Luristan bronzes extend over two millenia and 
show connections with Mesopotamia, Syria, 
Asia Minor, the Caucasus region, south-eastern, 
central and even northern Europe, and perhaps 
a link with Far Eastern forms, too. There is 
doubt as to which people was the bearer of 
this culture in the Luristan region. The Indo- 
European Kassites have been suggested. It was 
they who descended from their habitations in 
the Zagros mountains in the middle of the 
1700’s B.C. and later conquered Babylon, where 
a Kassite dynasty was founded which lasted 
until 1 1 85 B.C. 

L. Legrain, Luristan Bronzes in the University 
Museum. Philadelphia 1934. 

A. Moortgat, Bronzegerat aus Luristan. Berlin 

H. A. Potratz, Die Luristanbronzen des Staat- 
lichen Museums fur Vor- und Friihgeschichte 
zu Berlin. Prahistorische Zeitschrift, Vol. XXX— 
XXXI 1939-1940. 

— Die luristanischen Pferdegebisse. Prahistorische 
Zeitschrift, Vol. XXXII- XXXIII 1941-1942. 

Claude F. A. Schaeffer, Stratigraphie Comparee 
et Chronologie de l’Asie Occidentale. London 
1948. (Specially Figs. 263-268.) 

L. Speleers, Nos bronzes perses. Bulletin des 
Mus6es Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire. Bruxelles 

L. Vanden Berghe, Archeologie de l’lran ancien. 
Documenta et monumenta Orientis antiqui, 
Vol. 6. Leiden 1959. 

Digitized by LjOOQle 


Agyptische Siegelamulette 


Die gegen vierhundertfiinfzig altagyptischen 
Siegel und Siegelamulette, die im Besitze des 
Mittelmeermuseums sind, und von denen hier 
achtzig veroffentlicht werden, haben zum iiber- 
wiegenden Teil der Sammlung des englischen 
Obersten Gayer-Anderson Pascha angehort. 
Fiir diesen nicht nur zahlenmassig sondern auch 
vom kulturgeschichtlichen Gesichtspunkt her 
bedeutenden Erwerb, ist das Museum vor allem 
dem neulich verstorbenen Herbert Rettig zu 
grossem Dank verpflichtet. Wertvolle Zuschusse 
sind der Sammlung ferner durch die schwe- 
dischen Grabungen in Abu Ghalib 1932/34 
und 1936/37 zugefuhrt worden sowie durch 
die Stiftung von S. Bredberg im Jahre 1951. 

Bisher sind nur die Abu Ghalib-Funde des 
Mittelmeermuseums publiziert worden 1 . 

Von den hier vorgelegten Siegelamuletten, 
die hauptsachlich aus der 6. Dynastie bis zum 
Anfang des Neuen Reiches datieren, sind etwa 
die Halfte Knopfsiegel, die iibrigen — bis auf 
einige sog. „mid-pieces”, d. h. an Halsketten als 
Amulette getragene Schmuckstiicke — sind 

1 Larsen, Vorbericht iiber die Schwedischen Gra- 

bungen in Abu Ghalib 1932/34 (MDAIK 6, 1935, 
S. 61 ff.); Vorbericht ... Abu Ghalib 1936 37 
(MDAIK 10, 1941, S. 14 ff.). 

Skarabaen oder Sonderformen des Skarabaus, 
als Skaraboid, Cowroid und Plaque bezeich- 
net 2 . 

Die Siegelamulette sind vorzugsweise aus 
Steatit und glasiertem gebranntem Ton, einige 
Knopfsiegel ausserdem aus Serpentin. In verein- 
zelten Fallen sind Stoffe wie Elfenbein, Kar- 
neol, Feldspat, Lapislazuli, Amethyst und Jaspis 
als Material verwendet worden. 

Das aus dem Mittelmeerkreis stammende 
Knopfsiegel, dessen Bliitezeit in Agypten in die 
spatere Halfte des Alten Reiches und in die 1. 
Zwischenzeit fiel, ist — wie auch aus der Form 
hervorgeht — als Siegel beabsichtigt gewesen. 
Der haufig wenig zweckmassige Griff deutet 
aber darauf hin, dass es vor allem als Amulett 
gedient hat. Der Griff ist durchbohrt und das 
Siegel wurde entweder als Zentralperle an einer 
Halskette oder allein auf eine Schnur aufge- 
zogen getragen. 

Die Siegelplatte ist meistens kreisformig. 
Knopfsiegel mit viereckiger Platte kommen 
auch vor, obwohl in bescheidenem Umfang. 
Die Oberseite (der Griff) ist auch verschieden 
ausgestaltet. Viele Knopfsiegel haben halbkreis- 

2 Vgl. Hall, Catalogue of Egyptian Scarabs, Etc. 
in the British Museum. London 1913, S. XIV. 


Digitized by LjOOQle 

fonnigen Griff, andere giebel- oder halboval- 
formigen. Auf einigen Siegeln hat der Griff die 
Gestalt eines Menschen- oder eines Tierkor- 
pers 3 . 

Die Darstellung der Siegelflache ist fast aus- 
nahmslos stark stilisiert. Haufig vorkommende 
Motive sind menschliche Figuren oder Tiere 
verschiedener Art. Von den letzterwahnten 
scheint dabei die Eidechse ein beliebtes Motiv 
gewesen zu sein. Unter den wiedergegebenen 
Kreuzmotiven ist vor allem die Swastika von 
besonderem Interesse; aller Wahrscheinlichkeit 
nach ist dies Motiv von asiatischen Einwande- 
rem nach Agypten eingefUhrt worden 4 . Mehrere 
Knopfsiegel tragen nichtidentifizierbare Dar- 

Eine zeitlich genaue Bestimmung lasst sich 
wegen des Mangels an unmittelbaren Prove- 
nienzangaben hier nicht durchfiihren, was auch 
fiir die Skarabaen gilt. Die Datierung muss sich 
deswegen auf andere Indizien stiitzen, in erster 
Linie auf die aussere Form des Siegelamuletts 
und auf das Motiv, das bisweilen nur wahrend 
einer mehr oder weniger begrenzten Zeitperiode 
auftritt. Zu der letzten Gruppe gehort u. a. das 
Knopfsiegel mit Griff in Gestalt eines Frosches, 
eine Form, die nur in der 7. Dynastie vor- 
kommt 5 . Zeitlich begrenzte Motive sind z. B. 
der Hase und die Eidechse sowie der Pavian 
und der stilisierte Kafer, welche mit der 6. 
bzw. der 7. Dynastie aufhoren 5 . Das „mid- 
piece” hingegen, dessen Herstellung in der 9. 
Dynastie anfangt, dauert bis an das Ende des 
Mittleren Reiches, mit Seilschleifenmuster von 
der 12. Dynastie an 5 . 

Mit dem Ausgang der 1. Zwischenzeit ver- 
schwindet das Knopfsiegel, um durch den 
Skarabaus und seine Sonderformen ersetzt zu 
werden. Schon am Ende des Alten Reiches tritt 
der Skarabaus auf, aber der nicht gravierten 

a Nr. 18, Isis mit dem Horuskind; Nr. 14 u. 20, 
Frosch; Nr. 8, 24 u. 34, Nilpferd(?). Fiir andere For- 
msn vgl. PBDS, PI. 1. 

4 Vgl. Nr. 32, Anm. 

5 VgJ. PBDS. 

Unterseite nach zu schliessen, ist er anfanglich 
nur als Amulett verwendet worden. Er sollte 
spater die Funktion des Knopfsiegels iiber- 
nehmen, wobei die Unterseite (Siegelflache) mit 
Verzierungen und Inschriften versehen wurde. 

Wie das Knopfsiegel weist der Skarabaus fast 
ausnahmslos eine Durchbohrung auf und wurde 
entweder an einer Halskette getragen oder in 
einen Fingerring gefasst. 

Zu allgemeinerer Anwendung gelangte er erst 
in der spateren Halfte des Mittleren Reiches, 
als auch seine Sonderformen — bis auf den 
Cowroid, der schon in der 10. Dynastie her- 
gestellt wurde 6 — zum ersten Male auftreten 7 . 
Das skarabaenformige Siegelamulett, das zuerst 
eine sorgfaltige Nachahmung seines lebenden 
Vorbildes war, erhielt in der 12. Dynastie eine 
schematisierte Form — eine Erscheinung, die 
auch wahrend der 2. Zwischenzeit fortdauerte 8 . 

Die Siegelflache zeigt haufig ein aus Spiralen 
oder Schlingen zusammengesetztes Muster, das 
entweder die ganze Flache deckt 9 oder als Borte 
einzelne Hieroglyphenzeichen oder Inskrip- 
tionen umrahmt 10 . Das Spiralmuster, am 
Anfang des Mittleren Reiches aus der agaischen 
Inselwelt nach Agypten gekommen, und das 
spater auftretende Seilschleifenmuster 11 , deren 
Bliitezeit in die 12. Dynastie und die 2. Zwisch- 
enzeit fiel, weisen in Bezug auf die Komposi- 
tion eine Fiille von verschiedenartigen Formen 
auf 12 . Im allgemeinen ist die Gravierung sorg- 
faltig ausgefuhrt, vor allem aber weisen die 
Siegelamulette der 12. und der 13. Dynastien 
meisterhaft geschnittene Muster auf. Das 
Pflanzenmuster, vorzugsweise mit dem Lotus 
als Hauptmotiv, ist bis in die 18. Dynastie 

8 Vgl. PBDS, S. 9. 

7 Das „mid-piece’\ das auf die 9. Dynastie zuriick- 
geht, hort in derselben Zeit auf. 

8 Zu den verschiedenen Formen vgl. Hall, a. a. O., 
S. XXX ff. 

0 Nr. 44, 46-54. 

10 Nr. 45, 55 bzw. Nr. 42, 43. Die letzteren gehoren 
den sog. c /ir c -Typ an (vgl. Stock, Agyptologische 
Forschungen 12, 1955, S. 23 f.). 

11 Nr. 37. 

12 Vgl. PBDS, PI. 7, 8. 

Digitized by ^jOOQle 


hinein sehr geschatzt gewesen und erscheint in 
zahlreichen Variationen, bisweilen in Verbin- 
dung mit Hieroglyphenzeichen 18 . Skarabaen mit 
Tierdarstellungen sind auch haufig. Dieses 
Motiv ist vor allem in der 2. Zwischenzeit in 
Mode gewesen, u. a. mit Tieren, wie dem 
Lowen, dem Krokodil, der Gazelle und dem 
Uraus als beliebte Objekte. Sie sind — manch- 
mal in tadelloser Ausfiihrung — allein oder 
paarweise dargestellt. Der Lowe erscheint oft 
mit dem Uraus, der letztere (als Zentralfigur) 
mit hieroglyphischen Zeichen 14 . Auf Skarabaen 
mit zwei Tieren sind diese, wenn es sich um 
dasselbe Tier handelt, symmetrisch abgebildet, 
umgekehrt einander gegeniibergestellt 16 . 

Ober die Herkunft der hier vorgelegten Sie- 
gelamulette ist wenig bekannt. Nur in vereinzel- 
ten Fallen ist der Erwerbsort von dem friiheren 
Besitzer mitgeteilt worden, haufig aber hat er 
sich fur eine ganze Gruppe damit begniigt, 
mehrere Orte anzugeben, ohne die verschie- 
denen Erwerbungen zu spezifizieren. 

1. Siegelamulett aus Elfenbein. Griff wegge- 

Inv. Nr. MM 14949. 

Grosse: D. 21 mm.; H. 4 mm. 

Siegelflache: menschliche Figur mit iiber den 
Kopf gebogenen Armen und stark aufgezogenen 
Beinen 16 . 

Altes Reich. 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 11, Nr. 56-58. 

2. Siegelamulett aus griinlichgrauem Serpentin, 
mit halbovalformigem Griff. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14576. 

Grosse: D. 19 mm.; H. 9 mm. 

Siegelflache: stehende menschliche Figur, mit 
nach unten gestreckten Armen. 

1. Zwischenzeit. 

,s Nr. 56-61. 63. 65 bzw. Nr. 66, 67. 

'* Nr. 68, 69 bzw. Nr. 79. 

13 Nr. 75, 76. 

'* Nach Petrie moglicherweise eine Wiedergabe des 
Hathorkopfes; die urspriingliche Form ist falsch ver- 
standen (PBDS, S. 5). 

3. Siegelamulett aus Kameol, mit halbkreisfor- 
migem Griff. Ein Teil der Siegelplatte wegge- 

Inv. Nr. MM 14577. 

Grosse: D. 16 mm.; H. 9 mm. 

Nur der obere Teil der DarsteUung der Siegel- 
flache — wahrscheinlich eine menschliche Figur 
— ist erhalten. 

1. Zwischenzeit. 

4 . Siegelamulett aus hellgriinem Serpentin, mit 
halbkreisformigem Griff. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14559. 

Grosse: D. 9 mm.; H. 5 mm. 

Siegelflache: liegender Hase. 

Wahrscheinlich 6. Dynastie. 

5. Siegelamulett aus gelblichgrauem, glasiertem 
Steatit, mit wagerechtem, durch zwei parallele 
Rillen in Sektionen aufgeteiltem Griff. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14632. 

Grosse: D. 14 mm.; H. 7 mm. 

Siegelflache: stilisierte Biene. 

1. Zwischenzeit. 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 1, Nr. 21-24, 26. 

6. Siegelamulett aus gelblichgrauem, glasiertem 
Steatit, mit halbkreisformigem Griff. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14624. 

Grosse: D. 15 mm.; H. 7 mm. 

Siegelflache: stilisierte Biene. 

1. Zwischenzeit. 

7. Siegelamulett aus gelblichgrauem Steatit, mit 
giebelformigen Griff. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14580. 

Grosse: D. 18 mm.; H. 6 mm. 

Auf der Siegelflache ein Kriechtier — mog- 
licherweise eine Eidechse. 

Wahrscheinlich 6. Dynastie. 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 3, Nr. 164; PI. 6, Nr. 104 A. 

8. Siegelamulett aus hellgriin glasiertem ge- 
branntem Ton, mit Griff in Gestalt eines 


Digitized by ^jOOQle 


Abb. 1. Siegelamulette. Siegelflache. Nr. 1, 7, 16, 
21, 32, 36, 37, 42, 45, 49, 54, 55, 57, 72, 73, 75, 80. 

Abb. 2. Siegelamulette. Riickseite. Cowroid und 
Skarabden. Nr. 42 (Skarabaus), 49 (Cowroid), 57, 
74, 75, 80 ( Skarabden ). 

H i 

fe. 1 


Inv. Nr. MM 14582. 

Grosse: D. 13 mm.; H. 7 mm. 

Siegelflache: stilisierte Eidechse. 

Wahrscheinlich 6. Dynastie. 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 3, Nr. 172. 

9. Siegelamulett aus grim glasiertem gebrann- 
tem Ton, mit giebelformigem Griff. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14566. 

Grosse: D. 15 mm.; H. 7 mm. 

Siegelflache: stilisierte Eidechse zwischen zwei 
gebogenen Ritzen. 

Wahrscheinlich 6. Dynastie. 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 3, Nr. 171. 

10. Siegelamulett aus griinbraun glasiertem ge- 
branntem Ton, mit halbkreisformigem Griff. 
Inv. Nr. MM 14641. 

Grosse: D. 17 mm.; H. 9 mm. 

Siegelflache: Skarabaus(?). 

6. oder 7. Dynastie. 

Digitized by 


11. Siegelamulett aus griinlichbraun glasiertem 
gebranntem Ton, mit halbkreisfbrmigem Griff. 
Inv. Nr. MM 14584. 

Grosse: D. 16 mm.; H. 8 mm. 

Auf der Siegelflache ein nachlassig dargestellter 
stilisierter Skarabaus(?). 

7. Dynastief?). 

12 . Siegelamulett aus schwarzbraunem Serpen- 
tin. Griff weggebrochen. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14637. 

Grosse: D. 20 mm.; H. 5 mm. 

Auf der an drei Stellen durchbohrten Siegel- 
platte eine Eidechse(?) in stilisierter Darstell- 

Wahrscheinlich 6. Dynastie. 

In Edfu gekauft. 

13 . Siegelamulett aus graubraunem Steatit, mit 
schwach gerundetem Griff. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14650. 

Grosse: 15X13X8 mm. 

Auf der fast quadratischen Siegelplatte ein 
stilisiertes Kerbtier oder Eidechse. 
Wahrscheinlich 6. Dynastie. 

14 . Siegelamulett aus gelblichbraunem Steatit, 
mit Griff in Gestalt eines Frosches. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14627. 

Grosse: 16X14X10 mm. 

Auf der ovalen Siegelplatte ein stilisiertes 

1. Zwischenzeit (7. Dynastie). 

15 . Siegelamulett aus gelblichgrauem Steatit, in 
zwei Stiicke zerbrochen, mit zum Teil bescha- 
digtem Griff. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14647. 

Grosse: D. 18 mm.; H. 7 mm. 

Siegelflache: Kerbtier(?). 

Wahrscheinlich 1. Zwischenzeit. 

16 . Siegelamulett aus grauschwarzem Steatit, 
mit halbkreisformigem Griff. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14569. 

Grosse: D. 17 mm.; H. 8 mm. 

Siegelflache: stilisiertes Kerbtier(?). 
Wahrscheinlich 1. Zwischenzeit. 

17 . Siegelamulett aus schwarzem Serpentin, mit 
giebelformigem Griff. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14644. 

Grosse: D. 14 mm.; H. 7 mm. 

Auf der Siegelflache Eidechse und Skorpion in 
stilisierter Darstellung. 

Wahrscheinlich 6. Dynastie. 

18 . Siegelamulett aus grauweissem Steatit, mit 
Griff in Gestalt der Gottin Isis mit dem Horus- 
kind* 7 . 

Inv. Nr. MM 14941. 

Grosse: 15X16X27 mm. 

Auf der halbovalformigen Siegelplatte dieselbe 
Darstellung wie auf Nr. 17. 

Wahrscheinlich 6. Dynastie. 

In Assuan gekauft. 

19 . Siegelamulett aus schwarzbraun glasiertem 
gebranntem Ton, mit schwach gerundetem 

Inv. Nr. MM 14649. 

Grosse: D. 14 mm.; H. 7 mm. 

Siegelflache: stark stilisierte Darstellung eines 
liber einem Gefangenen(?) liegenden Lowen(?). 
1. Zwischenzeit. 

Vgl. PBDS, S. 5, PI. 2, Nr. M 78, M 100. 

20 . Siegelamulett aus weisslichgrauem Steatit, 
mit Griff in Gestalt eines Frosches. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14599. 

Grosse: D. 17 mm.; H. 9 mm. 

Siegelflache: stark stilisierter Vogel(?) 18 . 

1. Zwischenzeit (7. Dynastie). 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 1, Nr. 25, 26. 

17 Vgl. PBDS, S. 3, PI. 1: A 1. Oder handelt es sich 
vielleicht um eine profane Darstellung dieses Motivs? 
(Vgl. Egyptian Art in the Brooklyn Museum Collec- 
tion, 1952, Fig. 28.) 

*' Oder eine Biene? 


Digitized by ^jOOQle 

21. Siegelamulett aus griinlichem Feldspat, mit 
giebelformigem oben gerundetem Griff. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14596. 

Grosse: D. 17 mm.; H. 10 mm. 

Siegelflache: Vogel mit erhobenen Fliigeln. 

1. Zwischenzeit. 

In Luxor gekauft. 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 5, Nr. 305. 

22. Siegelamulett aus schwarzem Steatit, mit 
halbovalformigem Griff. Die Durchbohrung 

Inv. Nr. MM 14950. 

Grosse: D. 17 mm.; H. 6 mm. 

Siegelflache: laufender Vogel mit erhobenen 

1. Zwischenzeit. 

23. Siegelamulett aus grim glasiertem gebrann- 
tem Ton, mit halbkreisformigem Griff. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14579. 

Grosse: D. 15 mm.; H. 8 mm. 

Siegelflache: nicht identifizierbare Darstellung. 
1. Zwischenzeit. 

24. Siegelamulett aus grim glasiertem gebrann- 
tem Ton, mit Griff in Gestalt eines Nilpferdes. 
Inv. Nr. MM 14572. 

Grosse: D. 18 mm.; H. 10 mm. 

Siegelflache: nicht identifizierbare Darstellung. 
1. Zwischenzeit. 

25. Siegelamulett aus griin glasiertem gebrann- 
tem Ton, mit halbkreisformigem Griff. Ein Teil 
der Siegelplatte weggebrochen. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14571. 

Grosse: D. 16 mm.; H. 9 mm. 

Siegelflache: nicht identifizierbare Darstellung. 
1. Zwischenzeit. 

26. Siegelamulett aus schwarzem Serpentin, mit 
giebelformigem Griff. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14574. 

Grosse: D. 15 mm.; H. 8 mm. 

Siegelflache: Tier (das Set-Tier?) in stilisierter 


1. Zwischenzeit. 

Vgl. PBDS, S. 5, PI. 2, Nr. 125, 126. 

27 . Siegelamulett aus schwarzbraunem Steatit. 
Griff weggebrochen. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14948. 

Grosse: D. 16 mm.; H. 5 mm. 

Siegelflache: nicht identifizierbare Darstellung. 
1. Zwischenzeit. 

28 . Siegelamulett aus griinlichbraun glasiertem 
gebranntem Ton, mit halbkreisformigem Griff. 
Inv. Nr. MM 14558. 

Grosse: D. 17 mm.; H. 9 mm. 

Siegelflache: nicht identifizierbare Darstellung. 
1. Zwischenzeit. 

29 . Siegelamulett aus weisslichgrauem Steatit, 
mit giebelformigem Griff. Am Rande der Siegel- 
platte eine Beschadigung. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14573. 

Grosse: D. 12 mm.; H. 6 mm. 

Siegelflache: spiralahnliches Muster 19 . 

1. Zwischenzeit. 

30. Siegelamulett aus gelblichgrau glasiertem 
Steatit, mit halbkreisformigem Griff. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14621. 

Grosse: D. 12 mm.; H. 6 mm. 

Siegelflache: geometrische Darstellung in Gestalt 
eines Kreuzes mit in den Quadranten einge- 
schriebenen Winkeln. 

1. Zwischenzeit. 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 5, Nr. 339. 

31. Siegelamulett aus gelblichgrau glasiertem 
Steatit, mit halbkreisformigem Griff. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14625. 

Grosse: D. 12 mm.; H. 6 mm. 

Siegelflache: dasselbe Muster wie auf Nr. 29. 

1. Zwischenzeit. 

18 Moglicherweise eine sich ringelnde Schlange. 

Digitized by 



32. Siegelamulett aus gelblichgrau glasiertem 
Steatit, mit halbkreisformigem Griff. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14561. 

Grosse: D. 14 mm.; H. 8 mm. 

Siegelflache: Swastika 20 . 

1. Zwischenzeit. 

33. Siegelamulett aus grauem Steatit, mit ge- 
rundetem Griff. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14568. 

Grosse: D. 20 mm.; H. 10 mm. 

Siegelflache: sternahnliches Kerbenmuster. 

1. Zwischenzeit. 

34. Siegelamulett aus schwarzbraunem Serpen- 
tin, mit Griff in Gestalt eines Nilpferdesf?). 
Inv. Nr. MM 14648. 

Grosse: 17X14X10 mm. 

Auf der ovalen Siegelflache ein unregelmassiges 

1. Zwischenzeit. 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 5, Nr. 390. 

35. Siegelamulett aus weissgrauem Steatit, mit 
halbovalformigem Griff. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14549. 

Grosse: 22X14X16 mm. 

Auf der ovalen Siegelflache ein unregelmassiges 

1. Zwischenzeit. 

36. Siegelamulett aus braunlichem Serpentin, in 
Gestalt eines Prismas mit schragen schwach 
gerundeten Kurzseiten. Die Durchbohrung 

Inv. Nr. MM 14645. 

Grosse: 16X12X7 mm. 

Siegelflache: gehender Pavian (?). 

6. Oder 7. Dynastie. 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 2, Nr. 90. 

37. Kugelabschnittformiges Siegelamulett aus 

“ Zu diesem Motiv vgl. PBDS, S. 3, PI. 3. 

gelblichgrauem Steatit. Ohne Durchbohrung. 
Inv. Nr. MM 14947. 

Grosse: D. 20 mm.; H. 12 mm. 

Auf der Siegelflache ein c rth -Zeichen, von eine 
in Schleifen gelegten, verknotenen Seil eir 
gerahmt. Rechts und links eine Seilschleife m 
gebogenen Enden. 

12. oder 13. Dynastie. 

In Luxor gekauft. 

38. Ellipsoidalabschnittformiges Siegelamule 
aus gelblichem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11372. 

Grosse: 17X14X6 mm. 

Siegelflache: Kreuzmuster, mit Speichen i 
Gestalt der Papyrussaule, von Kreisen, bzw 
Lotusknospen flankiert. 

Mittleres Reich. 

39. Kugelabschnittformiges Siegelamulett au 
griinlichblau glasiertem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11376. 

Grosse: D. 10 mm.; H. 4 mm. 

Siegelflache: Papyruspflanzef?), iiber dieser eit 
nh-Zeichen und Sonnenscheibe. 

Anfang 18. Dynastie? 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 18, Nr. 1357; NS, PI. 41 
Nr. 36; NSS, PI. 10. 

40 . Ellipsoidalabschnittformiges Siegelamuleti 
aus gelblichweissem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11366. 

Grosse: 18X15X6 mm. 

Siegelflache: Spiralmuster, von Lotus umrahmt. 
Wahrscheinlich 12. Dynastie. 

41 . Ellipsoidalabschnittformiges Siegelamulett 
aus gelblichgrauem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14942. 

Grosse: 20 X 18X7 mm. 

Siegelflache: zwei Bienen, als Ausfiillungsdeko- 
ration zu dritt verkettete Kreise. 

Mittleres Reich. 

In Luxor gekauft. 


Digitized by ^jOOQle 

42. Skarabaus aus gelblichgrauem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11277. 

Grosser 26X19X13 mm. 

Siegelflache: Ovale mit Hieroglypheninskription 
von Spiralborte eingerahmt 21 . 

2. Zwischenzeit. 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 9, Nr. 344; NS, PI. 24, Nr. 19; 
WSB, PI. 11, Nr. 433. 

43. Skarabaus aus gelblichgrauem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11340. 

Grosser 17X12X7 mm. 

Siegelflache: Ovale mit Hieroglypheninskrip- 
tion, von Zickzacklinien flankiert 22 . 

Neues Reich oder spater. 

44. Skarabaus aus Lapislazuli. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11267. 

Grosser 22X15X11 mm. 

Siegelflacher nachlassig graviertes Muster aus 
ovalen Spiralen. 

Mittleres Reich. 

45. Skarabaus aus gelblichgrauem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11324. 

Grosser 28X20X12 mm. 

Auf der Siegelflache ein c aiA- (t) und ein n/r- 
Zeichen (i), von einer Borte aus verketteten 
ovalen Spiralen eingerahmt. 

Mittleres Reich. 

Vgl. NSS, PI. 11, Nr. 36465. 

46. Skarabaus aus gelblichgriin glasiertem 

Inv. Nr. MM 11325. 

Grosser 27 X 1 8 X 1 1 mm. 

Siegelflacher Muster, aus verketteten, biigel- 
formigen Schlingen zusammengesetzt. 

Mittleres Reich. 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 7, Nr. 86; NS, PI. 18, Nr. 24. 

n Vgl. Petrie, Ancient Egypt, 1916, S. 23. 
B Vgl. Nr. 42, Anm. 

47. Skarabaus aus urspriinglich blaugrtin gla- 
siertem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 13897. 

Grosser 18X12X8 mm. 

Siegelflacher Muster, aus S-formigen ver- 
ketteten Spiralen zusammengesetzt. 

12. Dynastie oder 2. Zwischenzeit. 

Vgl. NSS, PI. 13, Nr. 36551. 

48 . Skarabaus aus blauglasiertem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14269. 

Grosser 14X10X6 mm. 

Auf der Siegelflache ein aus S-formigen, schrag- 
gestellten verketteten Spiralen zusammenge- 
setztes Muster, die Endspiralen mit Lotusbliiten 

2. Zwischenzeit. 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 7, Nr. 49. 

49. Cowroid aus grauweissem Steatit, mit 
einem zwei Lotusbliiten enthaltenden Muster 
auf der konvexen Seite. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14945. 

Grosser 24X20X8 mm. 

Siegelflacher Muster aus verketteten S-formigen 
Spiralen, mit zwei Lotusbliiten. 

Mittleres Reich. 

In Edfu gekauft. 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 16, Nr. 1088 (ohne Lotus). 

50. Skaraboid aus braunglasiertem Steatit, mit 
der konvexen Seite in Gestalt des Gesichts 
eines Asiaten in Rechtsprofil. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11315. 

Grosser 15X12X7 mm. 

Siegelflacher Seilschleifenmuster zwischen 
biigelformigen Schlingen. 

Mittleres Reich(?). 

51. Skarabaus aus Amethyst. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11268. 

Grosser 16X12X9 mm. 

Siegelflacher Muster aus biigel- und S-formigen 

Mittleres Reich. 

Digitized by ^jOOQle 


52. Skarabaus aus hellblau glasiertem Steatit. 
Inv. Nr. MM 14249. 

Grosse: 10X7X5 mm. 

Siegelflache: Muster aus senkrecht gestellten, 
verketteten Spiralen nebst zwei Lotusbliiten. 

2. Zwischenzeit. 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 7, Nr. 103, 104 (ohne Lotus); 
NSS, PI. 13, Nr. 36548 (ohne Lotus). 

53. Skarabaus aus blauglasiertem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11285. 

Grosse: 16X10X7 mm. 

Siegelflache: gleichmassiges Muster aus wage- 
recht gegeneinander gestellten Osen. 

Mittleres Reich oder 2. Zwischenzeit. 

54. Skarabaus aus blauglasiertem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11282. 

Grosse: 18X11X7 mm. 

Auf der Siegelflache ein aus verketteten Seil- 
schleifen und biigelformigen, verketteten Schlin- 
gen zusammengesetztes Muster, mit zwei in 

der Biigelkomposition durch eine diagonal 
laufende S-formige Schlinge getrennten nb- 

Mittleres Reich oder 2. Zwischenzeit 
Vgl. PBDS, PI. 16, Nr. 1150. 

55. Skarabaus aus graulichblau glasiertem 

Inv. Nr. MM 14271. 

Grosse: 13X9X6 mm. 

Auf der Siegelflache, von einer Borte aus ver- 
ketteten Kreisen mit eingeschriebenen Tupfen 
eingerahmt, die Inskription R e nfr. 

2. Zwischenzeit. 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 9, Nr. 329, 333; PS, PI. 20, 
y, z, aa; WSB, PI. 11, Nr. 40. 

56. Skarabaus aus blauglasiertem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11283. 

Grosse: 15X10X7 mm. 

Siegelflache: Seilschleifenmuster mit zwei ge- 
geniiberliegenden Lotusbliiten. 

Mittleres Reich oder 2. Zwischenzeit. 

Abb. 5. Siegelamulette. Riickseiten verschiedener Form. Nr. 77 (Skaraboid), 14 (Knopf- 
siegel), 58 (Skaraboid), 18, 19, 5, 4, 26, 24 (Knopfsiegel), 65 (Cowroid), 50 (Skaraboid), 
10 (Knopfsiegel). 


Digitized by ^jOOQle 

57. Skarabaus aus gelblichgrauem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11328. 

Grosse: 15X11X7 mm. 

Siegelflache: Lotusbliite, von S-formigen Spira- 
len flankiert. 

Mittlcres Reich? 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 10, Nr. 412. 

58. Skaraboid aus urspriinglich griin glasiertem 
Steatit, mit der konvexen Seite in Gestalt einer 
schlafenden Gans 23 . 

Inv. Nr. MM 14562. 

Grosse: 15X10X10 mm. 

Siegelflache: Kartusche mit Lotusblute und 

18. Dynastie. 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 10, Nr. 416; NS, PI. 42, Nr. 15; 
NSS, PI. 12, Nr. 37169, 37145; WSB, PI. 11, 
Nr. 411. 

59. Skarabaus aus rotem Jaspis. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11272. 

Grosse: 10X7X5 mm. 

Siegelflache: Lotusblute. 

Mittleres Reich. 

60. Skarabaus aus griin glasiertem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 14294. 

Grosse: 15X12X7 mm. 

Siegelflache: Muster, aus Spiralen, Lotusbliiten 
und Lotusknospen zusammengesetzt. 
Wahrscheinlich Anfang 1 8. Dynastie. 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 8, Nr. 178. 

61. Skarabaus aus urspriinglich griinglasiertem 

Inv. Nr. MM 11284. 

Grosse: 13X9X6 mm. 

Auf der Siegelflache, zwischen *nA-Zeichen ein 
aus vier Lotusbliiten zusammengesetztes spiral- 
formiges Muster. 

Mittleres Reich oder 2. Zwischenzeit. 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 8, Nr. 180. 

3 Vgl. NS, S. 87, Fig. 92. 

62. Skarabaus aus blauglasiertem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 1 1300. 

Grosse: 12X9X6 mm. 

Siegelflache: sm §-Zeichen(?) — die Symbole fiir 
die Vereinigung der beiden Lander (Ober- und 


Vgl. PBDS, PI. 10, Nr. 385. 

63. Skarabaus aus weissgrauem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11342. 

Grosse: 15X10X7 mm. 

Siegelflache: Kartusche mit drei Kreisen, zwi- 
schen Lotus(?). 

Neues Reich oder spater. 

64. Skarabaus aus weissgrauem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 13740. 

Grosse: 21 X 14X 10 mm. 

Siegelflache: Muster aus vier gegeniiberliegen- 
den, zu zwei verketteten Osen. 

2. Zwischenzeit. 

65. Cowroid aus graugelb glasiertem Steatit, 
mit rautengemusterter R tick seite. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11356. 

Grosse: 19X18X6 mm. 

Siegelflache: S-formige Spirale, von Lotusknos- 
pen und umschniirtem Lotus flankiert. 

2. Zwischenzeit. 

66. Skarabaus aus griinlichblau glasiertem ge- 
branntem Ton. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11298. 

Grosse: 16X12X8 mm. 

Siegelflache: hieroglyphische Zeichen. 

2. Zwischenzeit? 

67. Skarabaus aus gelblichgrauem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11327. 

Grosse: 19X13X8 mm. 

Siegelflache: hieroglyphische Zeichen. 

12. Dynastie oder 2. Zwischenzeit. 

68. Skarabaus aus graubraun glasiertem Steatit. 

Digitized by ^jOOQle 


Inv. Nr. MM 11333. 

Grosser 14X10X7 mm. 

Siegelflache: Lowe, vor Uraus. 

2. Zwischenzeit. 

69 . Skarabaus aus griinglasiertem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11280. 

Grosser 23X16X10 mm. 

Siegelflache: sitzender Lowe, zwischen Uraus 
und Skarabaus. 

2. Zwischenzeit. 

70 . Skarabaus aus grauem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11331. 

Grosser 18X12X7 mm. 

Siegelflache: liegender Lowe(?). 

2. Zwischenzeit. 

71. Plaque aus blauglasiertem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11307. 

Grosser 19X14X5 mm. 

Siegelplatten: falkenkopfiger Sphinx unter einer 
Lotusbliite(?), bzw. ein Uraus auf ni-Zeichen, 
von einem c n/r-Zeichen und einer Lotusbliite 

Neues Reich? 

72. Cowroid aus gelbweiss glasiertem Steatit, 
mit auf der konvexen Seite langsgerichtetem, 
schraffiertem Banddekor. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11355. 

Grosser 25X14X9 mm. 

Siegelflache: unter Sonnenscheibe die vereinten 
Vorderteile zweier Lowen 24 . 

18. Dynastie? 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 14, Nr. 882. 

73 . Skarabaus aus grauweissem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11330. 

Grosser 18X12X8 mm. 

Siegelflache: unter Apf-Zeichen eine Gazelle mit 

24 Als Bezeichnung fur Shu und Tefnut (PBDS. 
S. 24). 

riickwarts gedrehtem Kopf. 

2. Zwischenzeit. 

74 . Skarabaus aus grauweissem, glasiertem 

Inv. Nr. MM 11332. 

Grosser 17X12X7 mm. 

Siegelflache: springende Gazelle mit riickwarts 
gedrehtem Kopf, dariiber Zweig. 

2. Zwischenzeit. 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 14, Nr. 866; NSS, PI. 7, 

Nr. 36666. 

75 . Skarabaus aus urspriinglich blaugriin gla- 
siertem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11288. 

Grosser 21X15X9 mm. 

Siegelflache: zwei umgekehrt einander gegen- 
iiber liegende Krokodile. 

2. Zwischenzeit. 

Vgl. NSS, PI. 7, Nr. 36919. 

76. Ellipsoidalabschnittformiges Siegelamulett 
aus grauweissem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11361. 

Grosser 22X19X6 mm. 

Siegelflache: zwei umgekehrt einander gegen- 
iiber stehende Gazellen(?), zwischen ihnen zwei 

2. Zwischenzeit. 

Vgl. PBDS, PI. 14, Nr. 875. 

77 . Skaraboid aus grauweissem Steatit, mit der 
konvexen Seite in Gestalt eines zweikopfigen 

Inv. Nr. MM 11352. 

Grosser 34X24X13 mm. 

Siegelflache: Krokodil, iiber diesem liegende 

2. Zwischenzeit oder 18. Dynastie. 

Vgl. NS, PI. 25, Nr. 33; NSS, PI. 7, Nr. 36706. 

78 . Skarabaus aus grauweissem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11329. 

Grosser 25X18X10 mm. 


Digitized by ^jOOQle 

Siegelflache: zwischen zwei Urausschlangen 
stehende menschliche Figur in spitzem Knie- 
schurz und mit einem Lotus(?) in der Hand. 
Unter der Iinken Uraus ein n6-Zeichen(?). 

2. Zwischenzeit. 

79. Skarabaus aus grauweissem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11326. 

Grosser 26 X 18 X 12 mm. 

Siegelflache: Uraus zwischen c nA-Zeichen und 

Mittleres Reich? 

80. Skarabaus aus griinglasiertem Steatit. 

Inv. Nr. MM 11278. 

Grosser 26X18X12 mm. 

Siegelflache: zwischen zwei c n/r-Zeichen, auf 

dem Zeichen fur „Gold” (nb) der Vorderteil 
eines Lowen, dariiber ein nft-Zeichen. 

2. Zwischenzeit. 

Vgl. NS, PI. 20, Nr. 29. 


MD1AK Mitteilungen des Deutschen Instituts fur 
agyptische Altertums-Kunde in Kairo. 

NS Newberry, P. E., Scarabs. London 

NSS Newberry, P. E., Scarabshaped Seals. 
London 1907. 

PBDS Petrie, W. M. F., Buttons and Design 
Scarabs. London 1925. 

PS Petrie, W. M. F., Scarabs and Cylinders 
with Names. London 1917. 

WSB Ward, J., The Sacred Beetle. London 

Digitized by ^jOOQle 


A Latial Iron Age Tomb-Group 

PAR GORAN gierow 

The tomb-group to be discussed on the follow- 
ing pages 1 was found some 1,500 m. NW of 
Castel Gandolfo in a plantation of peach-trees 
at a locality called Fosso del Truglio at the 
Pascolaro of Marino. 

The site is not topographically isolated from 
other find-spots known to us from the Alban 
Hills. The distance to Riserva del Truglio, 
where U. Antonielli in 1923 excavated a necro- 
polis 2 mainly belonging to Period IV of the 
Latial Iron Age, but also containing objects of 
earlier periods 3 , is only some hundreds of me- 

1 It will be dealt with also in my forthcoming work 
on the Iron Age Culture of Latium. Since the Latial 
Iron Age tombs are, alas, rather few, every new dis- 
covery is of considerable importance. I have, for that 

reason, accepted with pleasure Dr. Vessberg’s proposal 

to make it known here by a special paper. The tomb- 

group has previously been illustrated by A. Boethius 
in his contribution to the work San Giovenale. Etrus- 

kerna. Landet och folket, 1960, p. 40, fig. 24, and by 

the present author in the paper “Notes on the Iron 

Age Chronology of Latium”, in Opusc. Rom. Ill, 

1961, p. 115, fig. 10. 

9 NotSc 1924, pp. 429 ff. 

* Twenty-nine of the thirty tombs belong to Period 
IV, one of them (tomb IV) to the end of Period III. 
Among the sporadic finds with a certain provenance 
from these excavations there are some specimens of 
Contracted Impasto, datable to Period III. 

For the division of the Iron Age of Latium into 
four periods and for the nomenclature of the Impasto 
pottery of these periods proposed by E. Gjerstad and 


tres. More tombs, of the same date as those of 
Riserva del Truglio, were excavated by Anto- 
nielli in 1928 at Terreno Costa, somewhat N 
of Riserva del Truglio 4 . There can be no doubt 
that these localities form part of the same necro- 
polis, belonging to one of the hut villages of 
the Alban Hills 5 * * * 9 . 

Since the tomb was not unearthed during 
regular excavations, we have no information 
as to the type of the tomb or the burial rites. 
It can, however, be surmised from the presence 
of a hut urn among the material that incinera- 

to be presented by him in a forthcoming paper. Dis- 
cussions Concerning Early Rome, 2, in vol. V of 
Opusc. Rom., I refer, until Gjerstad’s paper has 
appeared, to my own article in Opusc. Rom. IV, 1962, 
The First Iron Age Discoveries in the Alban Hills. 

4 These excavations were never published by Anto- 
nielli. There are some brief references to them in 
BPI 48, 1928, pp. 169 f., and 50-51, 1930-31, pp. 
189 ff. The present whereabouts of this material are 

5 From a topographical point of view, the most 
probable site of this village is the summit of 
Monte Crescenzio (cf. F. v. Duhn, Italische Graber- 
kunde I, 1924, p. 393). Trial trenches dug there in 
1923 by Antonielli (NotSc 1923, pp. 79 f.) did not, 
however, reveal any traces datable to the Iron Age. 
but since the researches evidently were limited to a 
rather small area, this does not constitute a negative 
proof. If this position for the village is correct, the 
tombs found on the N slopes of Monte Crescenzio 
should be attributed to the same habitation. 

Digitized by ^jooole 


Fig. 1. The Latial tomb-group in the 
Medelhavsmuseet. The hut urn . Front- 

Fig. 2. The hut urn . Side-view . 

tion was practised. The bottom of the tomb 
was at a depth of 1.70 m. below the actual 
surface level. 

The tomb-group comprises nine objects, 
eight hand-made vases of Impasto and a razor 
of bronze. 

1. Hut Urn (Figs. 1—2). Rectangular with 
slightly convex sides and slightly widening 
towards the front; slightly convex walls, widen- 
ing upwards and projecting on both sides 
of the low rectangular door-opening; the pro- 
jecting part of the wall has on one side — the 
other is missing and restored — two perforations, 
one at the upper, the other at the lower end, 
for keeping the doorslab, now missing, in place; 
vertical, transversely notched ribs on long sides, 
on back, and at corners between these sides, 
representing wooden poles, used for the con- 
struction of the walls; conical roof with project- 
ing eaves, sloping less than the rest of the roof, 
and a longitudinal notched top-ridge; notched 
ribs from ends of top-ridge to points above the 
corners of the hut-walls. Slip dark brown, burn- 
ished. Clay coarse, dark grey, brown towards 
the surface. Broken and mended; base and front 
part much restored. H. 21.5 cm., d. of base 
17.5 - ab. 23.5 cm. (MM 1957:5). 

2. Jug (Figs. 3—4, No. 2). Flat base with low 
omphalos; conical body with low, slightly con- 
vex shoulder; rather high neck, slightly concave 
and tapering upwards; rim missing; vertical 
handle on the shoulder. Decorated on the 
shoulder with two encircling incised lines fram- 
ing groups each of four oblique incised lines. 
Slip dark brown and brown, burnished. Clay 
fairly coarse, reddish brown, partly with dark 
grey core. Broken and mended; handle, rim, 
and upper part of neck missing. H. as preserved 
8.8 cm., max. d. 9.3 cm. (MM 1957: 8). 

3. Jar (Figs. 3—4, No. 3). Flat base; biconical 
body; outtumed rim. Undecorated. Slip dark 
brown, burnished. Clay fairly coarse, dark grey, 
reddish brown towards the surface. Rim slightly 
chipped. H. 10.8 cm., d. at rim 8.6 cm. (MM 

4. Jar (Figs. 3—4, No. 4). Flat base with low 
omphalos; squat, biconical body; outcurving 
rim. Undecorated. Slip and clay as no. 3. Rim 
slightly chipped. H. 7.2— 8.0 cm., d. at rim 
7.9 cm. (MM 1957: 7). 

5. Cup (Figs. 3—4, No. 5). Flat base; conical 
(slightly concave) body with convex shoulder; 
erect rim, widening upwards; high, vertical, 
biforal handle from rim to shoulder, with lower 
part trapezoidal in section. Undecorated. Slip 
and clay as preceding. Broken and mended; 
rim chipped, upper loop of handle partly miss- 
ing, but restored. H. 4.2— 4.8 cm., d. at rim 6.9 
cm. (MM 1957: 11). 

6. Cup (Figs. 3—4, No. 6). Flat base; segmental 
body; slightly concave neck; slightly outcurving 
rim; high, vertical handle from rim to shoulder, 
with lower part elliptical in section. Undeco- 
rated. Slip dark brown, slightly burnished. Clay 
fairly coarse, red-brown, brown towards the 
surface, partly with dark grey core. Most of 
handle missing, rim chipped. H. 2.0— 2.3 cm., 
d. at rim 4.1 cm. (MM 1957: 12). 

7. Plate (Figs. 3—4, No. 7). Slightly concave, 
circular disc with slightly raised central part, rest- 
ing upon three legs. Undecorated. Slip dark 
brown, burnished. Clay fairly coarse, dark grey, 
reddish brown towards the surface. Most of 
legs and one segment of plate missing, the latter 
restored. H. as preserved 3.6 cm., d. 13.8 cm. 
(MM 1957: 10). 

8. Askos (Figs. 3—4, No. 8). Flat base; oblong 
biconical (biconvex) body with a longitudinal 
ridge along the back; neck asymmetrically 
placed, at one end of body; rim missing; ring- 
handle near base of neck, placed transversely 
across back-ridge. Undecorated. Slip and clay 
as preceding. Neck and much of one side of 
body restored, rim and handle missing, surface 
chipped. H. of body 8.2 cm., 1. 11.6 cm., 
w. 10.1 cm. (MM 1957:9). 

9. Razor (Figs. 3—4, No. 9). Trapezoidal 
blade with side nearest handle rounded; circular 
perforation opposite handle, near edge; handle 
made in one piece with blade and consisting of 


Digitized by ^jOOQle 

a narrow, biconical shaft, elliptical in section, 
and a circular ring, elliptical to diamond-shaped 
in section. In a good state of preservation; edge 
slightly damaged. L. (handle included) 11.9 
cm., w. 8.5 cm. (MM 1957: 13). 

To establish the date of the tomb-group 
comprising the objects described above, we 
have to look for parallels to them in other closed 
find-groups from Latium. Since the tomb in 
the Medelhavsmuseet, by the material found 
in it, belongs to the so-called Boschetto group 6 , 
i. e. the Latial version of the Iron Age culture 
of the Tolfa region, these parallels should pre- 
ferably be sought for in other tombs of that 

We will begin our study with the hut urn 
(no. 1). As to the general type it resembles 
above all the hut urn discovered in a tomb at 
Velletri, Vigna d’Andrea 7 , datable to the second 
half of Period I of the Latial Iron Age. The 
general proportions of the two urns are much 
the same. A more specific feature that they 
have in common and that is not found on any 
other Latial hut urn is the rendering of the 
walls, which widen markedly towards the top 
and show indications in relief of the wooden 

* This cultural group within the Iron Age Culture 
of Latium was first identified by G. Saflund, Bemer- 
kungen zur Vorgeschichte Etruriens, StEtr 12, 1938, 
p. 31. It is regarded by many scholars (cf., e. g., 
H. Muller-Karpe, Beitrage zur Chronologic der 
Urnenfelderzeit nordlich und siidlich der Alpen, 1959; 
id., Vom Anfang Roms, 1959; R. Peroni, Per una 
nuova cronologia del sepolcreto arcaico del Foro, 
Civiltfc del Ferro, 1960, pp. 461 ff., to mention some 
important recent works) as a transitional phase be- 
tween the Bronze and the Iron Age. As shown already 
by Saflund, op. cit., it must, however, be considered 
as contemporary with the other aspects of the Iron 
Age culture. Cf. also P. G. Gierow, La necropoli 
laziale di Anzio, BPI 69-70, 1960-61, pp. 243 ff., 
esp. p. 248, n. 23, and the works referred to there. 
M. Pallotino accepts (Le origini di Roma, ArchClass 
12, 1960, pp. 1 ff., esp. pp. 15 ff.) the low dates of the 
so-called Proto-Villanovan culture of the Tolfa region 
(they were, in fact, first proposed by him in StEtr XIII, 
1939, pp. 94 ff.), but is inclined to reject their appli- 
cation on the Roman and Latial find-complexes. 

7 NotSc 1893, pp. 200 f., figs. 2 and 2a. Mon Ant 
XV, 1905, pi. XXII, 11. 


poles used for the construction of the walls of 
the hut. There are, however, also certain differ- 
ences between the urns, in the execution of 
the door-opening, the ridge-logs on the roof, 
and the roof itself. The last-mentioned stylistic 
divergence should be especially noted, since it 
seems to be chronologically important. The roof 
of the urn from Velletri is conical and fairly 
high like that of the urn of tomb Q of the 
Forum necropolis 8 , whereas that of our urn is 
lower and has somewhat outcurving eaves, less 
sloping than the remaining part of the roof, a 
stylistic feature which, as far as our evidence 
goes, makes its first appearance in Period II* 
and is then found also in Period III 10 . These 
observations lead to the conclusion that the 
hut urn in the Medelhavsmuseet, on the one 
hand, should not be dated before Period II, 
but on the other hand, hardly after that period, 
because of the similarities to the urn from 

The jug (no. 2) has no good parallels in 
Latial find-contexts. The jug with a high coni- 
cal neck is not found in any other tomb of the 
Boschetto group, but belongs exclusively to the 
different Latial versions of the Fossa culture. 
Within the Boschetto group the vertical handle 
is found on two vases from Marino, Vigna 
Delsette 11 , both of Expansive Impasto, and on 
two vases from tomb 1 of those discovered 
recently at the Forum Romanum near the Arch 
of Augustus 12 , one of them of Expansive, the 
other of Normal Impasto 13 . Our vase is cer- 
tainly best compared with the last-mentioned of 
these specimens, if we leave the different execu- 
tion of the neck out of consideration and only 
look at the shape of the body with its sloping. 

" E. Gjerstad, Early Rome II, 1956, fig. 19,1. 

* Ibid., figs. 48,2 (tomb C) and 70,1 (tomb U). 

10 Ibid., figs. 105,2 (tomb GG) and 112,2 (Arch of 
Augustus, tomb 3). 

11 One of them is illustrated by G. Pinza, BullCom 
XXVI, 1898, pi. VIII, 15. 

v ‘ E. Gjerstad, Early Rome II, fig. 85, 1—2. 

“ Oral information from Prof. Gjerstad; cf. his 
forthcoming paper in Opusc. Rom. V. 

Digitized by ^jOOQle 

almost conical shoulder. The high neck, dis- 
tinctly separated from the body, can, on the 
other hand, be seen on two jars from tomb 
XIV of the necropolis of Anzio, of the Boschet- 
to type and datable to Period II 14 . It seems 
thus probable that the jug, like the hut urn 
discussed above, belongs stylistically to the 
Normal Impasto of Period II. 

The same date is probable also for the two 
biconical jars (nos. 3 and 4), although no such 
vases are known from closed find-groups. If we 
take the general stylistic development of the 
Latial Iron Age pottery into consideration, it 
becomes, however, evident that they are earlier 
than the horizontally contracted jars of tomb 4 
at the Arch of Augustus 15 . Two jars like those 
in Stockholm, but provided with an incised 
decoration, were discovered at the excavations 
of the necropolis of Anzio 16 , but their find- 
contexts are not known. From the same necro- 
polis there is also a specimen 17 that seems to 
illustrate the shape of this type of jar in the 
Expansive Impasto, that mainly belongs to 
Period I. 

The cup no. 5 has its best parallel in a 
specimen from Rocca di Papa, San Lorenzo 
Vecchio 18 , which, however, has a higher neck 
and a more outcurving rim. The shapes of the 
bodies and the very small upper loops of the 
handles of the two cups are, on the other hand, 
almost identical. The tomb of San Lorenzo 
Vecchio belongs to Period II of the Iron Age. 
The same type of cup is represented by a speci- 
men from Marino, San Rocco 10 , the context of 
which is, however, unknown. 

The miniature vase no. 6 is of no great chron- 
ological value because of its small size, which 

14 P. G. Gierow, La necropoli laziale di Anzio, 
BPI 69, 1960, p. 247, fig. 2, 2-3. 
u E. Gjerstad, Early Rome II, fig. 113, 4—5. 

14 P. G. Gierow, La necropoli laziale di Anzio, 
BPI 69, 1960, p. 251, fig. 3,3. 

17 Ibid., fig. 3,2. 

19 BPI, N. Ser. IV, 1940, p. 178, and pi. II, fig. 2,5. 
" MonAnt XV, 1905, pi. XVIII, 19. 

does not permit a close stylistic study of it. 
The miniaturistic tendency in the tomb-gifts of 
the Latial tombs can be observed throughout 
the first three periods of the Iron Age and can 
be seen both in tombs of the Boschetto group 
and in tombs of the other cultural groups of 
Latium 20 . 

The plate on three legs (no. 7) has no exact 
counterpart. There is, however, no doubt that 
it is stylistically later than that from Velletri, 
Vigna d’ Andrea 21 . That tomb should, as already 
mentioned, be assigned to the second half of 
Period I, and in fact, the plate with its distinct 
rim seems to be a characteristic specimen of 
the Expansive Impasto of that period 22 . On the 
other hand, our plate differs also considerably 
from a specimen of Contracted Impasto like 
that from the Arch of Augustus, tomb 4 23 . 
Therefore, it seems that the plate, like the 
pottery discussed in the preceding paragraphs, 
should be classified as Normal Impasto, and 
that it fills a gap in the typological sequence of 
this pottery form 24 . 

The askos (no. 8) should be compared with 
that from Velletri, Vigna d’ Andrea 25 . For that 
reason it must be classified as Expansive Impas- 
to. The heavier shape of this type of askos in 
the Normal Impasto is best illustrated by that 

*° I quote the following examples, without attempt- 
ing a complete list: Period I: Grottaferreta, Villa 
Cavalletti, tomb V; Period II: Forum necropolis, 
tombs A and N; Arch of Augustus, tomb 1; Period 
III: Arch of Augustus, tomb 4. 

M NotSc 1893, p. 210, fig. 13. 

” It should, however, be noted that a similar plate, 
only slightly more concave, was discovered in 1960 
by Dr. R. Peroni at Allumiere, Poggio La Pozza, 
tomb 4, which, in my opinion, might belong to a 
stage corresponding to Period II of the Latial Iron 
Age. Cf. NotSc 1960, p. 355, fig. 12, 5. 

23 E. Gjerstad, Early Rome II, fig. 113, 12. 

** I leave out of consideration the plates found in 
contexts not belonging to the Boschetto group: Forum 
necropolis, tomb C; Marino, Vigna Meluzzi, tomb II; 
two specimens from mixed find-groups of Grotta- 
ferrata, Villa Cavalletti; and one from the excavations 
of 1816-1817. 

26 NotSc 1893, p. 209, fig. 8; photographic illustra- 
tion in G. Pinza, Storia della civilta latina, pi. C, 2. 

Digitized by LiOOQle 


from Rocca di Papa, San Lorenzo Vecchio 26 , 
whereas the lax, baggy askoi from another 
tomb from the territory of Velletri 27 and the 
Arch of Augustus, tomb 3 28 , can be cited as 
examples of Contracted Impasto. 

The razor (no. 9) has only one parallel in 
Latium, from Grottaferrata, Villa Cavalletti 29 , 
and that is not from a closed find-group, and, 
moreover, it differs from ours in the number of 
holes near the edge and in the execution of the 
handle. In addition to that razor, there are a 
number of miniature specimens, one of them 
forming part of a tomb-group of Period II, the 
contents of which are at least partly known, 
i. e. that formerly belonging to the de Blacas 
Collection from the excavations of 1816 — 17 30 . 
Thus the razor does not contribute to the solu- 
tion of the problem of the date of our tomb. 
I am, however, not certain that it would have 
done so, even if more examples from well dated 
find-groups were known to us, since we should 
not forget that, in comparison with the pottery, 
the products of the bronze craft often manifest 
a certain conservatism in their typology, at least 
partly to be explained by their longer life-time. 
For that reason the bronzes express in a much 
less faithful way than the pottery, the aesthetic 
changes upon which the stylistic development 
which must be the basis of the chronological 
divisions is dependent. 

*« BPI N. Ser. IV, 1940, p. 177, and pi. II, fig. 2, 1. 
87 NotSc 1934, p. 110, fig. 2, 5. 

28 E. Gjerstad, Early Rome II, fig. 112, 10. 
w NotSc 1902, p. 189, fig. 101. 

80 G. De Blacas, Memoir sur une decouverte de 
vases funeraires pr£s d’Albano, M6m. Soc. des Anti- 
quaires de France 28, 1865; H. Muller-Karpe, Vom 
Anfang Roms, pi. XIV; P. G. Gierow, The First 
Iron Age Discoveries in the Alban Hills, Opusc. 
Rom. IV, 1962, pi. VIII B. Of this tomb-group only 
the hut um, now in the British Museum, is preserved 

The study of the nine objects which consti- 
tute the tomb-group discussed in this paper has 
shown that two of the objects, the miniature 
cup no. 6 and the razor no. 9, are of no use for 
establishing the date of the tomb. Of the re- 
maining seven specimens of pottery one, the 
askos no. 8, should be classified as Expansive 
Impasto, the others, with different degrees of 
certainty, as Normal Impasto. Since this is the 
variety of Impasto characteristic of Period II, 
there cannot be any doubt that the tomb-group 
in the Medelhavsmuseet should be assigned to 
that period. The presence of one specimen of 
Expansive Impasto, a variety that generally is 
found in tombs of Period I, in our tomb should 
not surprise us. Such survivals of earlier types 
of pottery in later find-contexts are, in fact, not 
uncommon in the Latial Iron Age tombs 31 . It 
is, however, perhaps an indication that the 
tomb in Stockholm belongs to the first half of 
Period II, which in absolute dates 32 would 
mean somewhere around the third quarter of 
the VIII th century B.C. 

81 Expansive Impasto in tombs of Period II: Arch 
of Augustus, tomb 1; Forum necropolis, tomb C; 
Grottaferrata, Villa Cavalletti, tomb I. Normal Im- 
pasto in tombs of Period III: Forum necropolis, tomb 
GG; Esquiline, tomb CX. Contracted Impasto in 
tombs of Period IV: Marino, Vigna Meluzzi, tomb II. 
For the Roman material this statement is based upon 
oral information from Prof. Gjerstad. 

88 For the absolute chronology I refer to E. Gjer* 
stad’s forthcoming paper Discussions Concerning 
Early Rome, 2, where it will be demonstrated with 
support of material from tombs in Etruria and on 
Ischia that the transition from Period II to Period 111 
should be dated around 700 B. C., and that, when it 
comes to the dating of the preceding two periods, we 
have only got the aid of the three Greek Late Geomet- 
ric skyphoi which have been found in two of the 
Pre-Hellenic tombs of Cumae (tomb 3 of the end of 
Period I and tomb 29 of Period II) and show that 
these periods belong to the VIIIU* century B.C. 


Digitized by 


Sculptures in the Throne-Hoist Collection 


The earliest items in Mr. Henning Throne- 
Hoist’s collection of antiques at Djursholm 
were acquired as long ago as the 1930’s, but 
most of it has been built up since 1953. The 
collection consists of sculptures and vases, 
covering with representative works significant 
periods in the art history of classical antiquity, 
although quantitatively it is not very large. In 
accordance with the collector’s clearly defined 
personal line the collection is to comprise 
nothing of inferior standard, but is to consist 
of a carefully chosen selection of first-class 
works. I will now present, with the owner’s 
kind permission, a number of the sculptures in 
the collection, beginning with the beautiful head 
of Heracles illustrated in fig. 1 . 

The head, which is 31 cm. high, is of white 
fine-crystalline marble, probably Italic. It is 
broken off straight across the neck. It is well 
preserved and only slightly damaged (in the 
frontal hair, on the tip of the nose and the 
right ear). The surface shows many traces of 
plant roots. The head was purchased in 1953 
from an art-dealer in Stockholm, but he had 
acquired it in Rome. 

It is a powerfully built head with projecting 
chin and knobby brow. The robust yet clas- 
sically severe features of the face are framed by 

locks of hair and a beard. This head, once 
part of a statue, was turned to the right (seen 
from the viewer) and bent slightly forwards. 

There cannot be much doubt that we have 
before us here a representation of Heracles, 
and at first I was inclined to identify this type 
with the Famese Heracles ascribed to Lysippos. 
Later, Vagn Poulsen recognized in our head 
a replica of a Heracles type in the Ny Carls- 
berg Glyptotek in Copenhagen 1 . 

This Heracles type (fig. 2), which is a pre- 
cursor of the Famese Heracles and exists in 
several replicas 2 , portrays Heracles leaning on 
his club which he has tucked into his left arm- 
pit, while his right hand rests on his hip. De- 
spite some differences this is, broadly speaking, 
the same attitude as in the Famese Heracles, 
but the form language is more limited and the 
body still bound by Polycletan tradition. 

A comparison of the heads in Copenhagen 
and in Stockholm leaves no doubt that they 
are replicas of the same original. There is agree- 

1 Frederik Poulsen, Catalogue of Ancient Sculp- 
ture in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 250, Billedtavler 
PI. XVIII. Vagn Poulsen, Acta Arch. XV, 1944, pp. 
63 ff. I am indebted to Dr. V. Poulsen for permission 
to publish the photograph reproduced as fig. 2. 

2 V. Poulsen, o.c., p. 76. Cf. Franklin P. John- 
son, Lysippos, pp. 200 f. 

Digitized by LjOOQle 


ment feature by feature: note the shape of the 
brow, the ductus of the eyes and eyebrows, the 
firm lower lip, the hair and the beard, prac- 
tically lock by lock. 

The Heracles statue in the Glyptotek is cer- 
tainly a preliminary stage of the Famese 
Heracles type, but it can hardly be listed among 
the works done by Lysippos himself. It is 
especially the treatment of the body that pre- 
cludes this. Poulsen dates the Copenhagen type 
to the first half of the fourth century B.C. and 
is inclined to place it quite early in this period. 
The head in Throne-Hoist’s collection is an 
excellent copy from the time of the Roman 
Empire of the same original as the Copenhagen 
replica. Judging from the classicistically per- 
fect, perhaps somewhat dry treatment of the 
marble, the copy was made during the first 
half of the second century A.D. 

The Satyr with the boy Dionysos (figs. 3—4) 
is a comprehensive group with much life and 
charm, even though owing to its rather hasty 
execution it does not satisfy the same demands 
for artistic quality as the other sculptures in the 
collection which are here described. It is, how- 
ever, of so much greater art-historical interest 
as it represents and supplements a well-known 
Hellenistic motif. It is executed in Italic marble 
with all body-surfaces highly polished. The 
maximum height of the whole group (including 
the flat stand) is 67.5 cm., the height of the 
Satyr (without the stand) being 54.5 cm. The 
group was bought in 1960 when in the posses- 
sion of M. Barsanti in Rome after having pre- 
viously belonged to A. Barsanti in Milan, who 
had acquired it in 1942. Earlier the group be- 
longed to the collection of the Palazzo Corsini 
di Lungamo in Florence 3 . Signor M. Barsanti 
has told me that the group aroused the great 

3 H. Dutschke, Antike Bildwerke in Oberitalien II, 
p. 218, n. 292. I was able to identify our group as a 
work earlier belonging to the collection in the Palazzo 
Corsini from a photograph reproduced in an article by 
A. Minto, Satiro con Bacco fanciullo, Ausonia, Anno 
VIII, 1913 (1915), pp. 90 ff. 


interest of Ludwig Curtius and G. E. Rizzo and 
on Curtius’ initiative was photographed for the 
German Institute in Rome. By courtesy of the 
Institute I am reproducing here two of these 
excellent photographs. 

The young Satyr is taking a step forward 
and grasping with his left hand the wrist of the 
infant Dionysos. He is turning his joyful face 
up to the god, who is sitting astride his 
shoulders. Dionysos (fig. 4), naked like the 
Satyr, is sitting in a lively equestrian pose and 
holding in his right hand above his head a 
cornucopia, of which only the tip is preserved. 
In his left hand he holds a bunch of grapes. 
His feet and the ends of his legs are broken off 
as also the Satyr’s forearm. His broad, girlish 
face with large globed eyes and a big well- 
shaped mouth with thick lips is surrounded 
by a thick swell of hair, and around his locks 
is twined an ivy spray. His hair is worked with 
plentiful use of the drill, as also in the case 
of the Satyr’s locks. On the back of the head 
of the Dionysos figure there is a roughly carved 
knot of hair executed on the surface like ver- 
tical bands. The piece between the knot and 
the back has not been cut away but serves as 
a support for the head. 

In the background beside the Satyr stands 
a small figure of Pan, hardly reaching up to 
the Satyr’s hip. He has shaggy goat’s legs and 
horns and tangled hair and beard, and he is 
looking up at Dionysos. In his right hand he 
holds a syrinx; in his left hand, which is broken 
off together with the forearm, he once held 
a pedum, part of which still survives. With his 
left cloven hoof he is just stepping on to the 
lid of a cylinder-shaped basket or chest, the 
cista mystica. The chest has two mouldings at 
the bottom and two at the top. From under its 
slightly open lid a broad-headed serpent is 
creeping out. 

A tree-trunk is carved as a support for the 
Satyr and the figure of Pan, and is joined to 
both. On the trunk hangs a syrinx much larger 
in size than the one held by Pan. It has besides 

Digitized by 


Fig. 3. Satyr with the infant 
Dionysos. Marble. The Throne- 
Hoist Collection , Djursholm. 

Digitized by ^jOOQle 


six tubes, while Pan’s has only five. The tree- 
trunk is cleft at the base so that it resembles 
the roots of old olive trees rising from the 

Beside the cista mystica rides a small, rather 
clumsily wrought Eros on a panther. Half the 
head of Eros is knocked off. In his left hand 
he is carrying a basket of fruits, probably meant 
to be grapes, and with his right hand he is 
grasping the panther’s head. 

The high polish and the extensive drilling 

Fig. 4 . Satyr with the infant Dio- 
nysos. Detail . The Throne-Hoist 
Collection , Djursholm . 

show that this group belongs to the second half 
of the second century A.D. at the earliest It 
is, however, very probable that the group is 
a third century piece. The drilling work with 
thinly dispersed but deep holes corresponds 
strikingly to the technique of the sarcophagus 
sculpture of the third century A.D. 4 , and one 
observes that the infant Dionysos very much 
resembles the young Christ of the sarcophagi. 

4 Cf. e.g. G. Wilpert, I sarcofagi Christiani an- 
tichi, Tav. VII:2, XXVII:!, LXXXXI. 

< 4 

Digitized by ^jOOQle 

Such details as the eyes of Dionysos with the 
bored almost hemispherical pupil close below 
the eyelid, and further the deep drill holes in 
the comers of the eyes of the Satyr speak in 
favour of a dating to the third century A.D. 
The authenticity of the group should be beyond 
all doubt. Incrustations of plant roots are 
visible in several places, for instance on the 
flat stand, on Pan’s back, the Satyr’s left foot, 
Dionysos’ back and right thigh. Dionysos’ right 
arm and a piece of the Satyr’s right forearm 
are attached but they are original. 

It is, however, quite certain that the original 
did not belong to this time. The work is a 
Hellenistic spiral composition, which in a grace- 
ful rising movement culminates in the infant 
Dionysos’ head and right hand with the cor- 
nucopia. It is a composition from the Late 
Hellenistic Age, where we find it in many 
famous works, such as the Hellenistic ruler in 
the Museo delle Terme or Aphrodite of Melos. 
Although new figures were readily added to 
Hellenistic groups during the Roman Empire 
period — we may think of the so-called Famese 
bull in the museum in Naples — I do not be- 
lieve that Pan and Eros with the panther are 
a subsequent addition of that kind. They are 
essential for the balance of the group, as may 
well be seen by looking at it from the back. 
In fact, the Late Hellenistic Age also loved 
compositions abounding in figures. There is, 
for instance, the group already mentioned by 
Apollonius and Tauriscus of Tralles, which 
even in its original conception was rich in 
figures, or a group (referred to in the literature) 
in Pompey’s theatre with motifs from Tralles 
which had more than twenty figures 5 and 
which was also clearly a work of the Late Hel- 
lenistic school of sculpture in that city. Maybe 
the group with the Satyr and Dionysos pre- 
serves the composition of the original and, as 
I have already indicated, it is of decisive im- 
portance for the reconstruction of a group 

3 Plinius nat. hist. 7.34. 

representing a satyr with the infant Dionysos 
that exists in five replicas 6 . Of these I am 
illustrating here the replica in the Vatican (fig. 
5). None of the replicas have preserved Diony- 

8 The replicas are as follows: 1. The Vatican, Gal- 
leria dei candelabri, G. Lippold, Die Skulpturen des 
Vatikanischen Museums, Bd 111:2, pp. 262 f. 
2. Naples, Museo Nazionale, Guida Ruesch, pp. 78 
f., n. 253. 3. Rome, Villa Albani, EA 3543/44. 
4. Bologna, Museo Archeologico, Minto, o.c., p. 94, 
Fig. 4. 5. Florence, Museo Archeologico, Minto, 
o.c., pp. 91 f., Tav. IV. 

Fig. 5. Satyr with the infant Dionysos. Marble. The 
Vatican , Galleria dei candelabri . 

Digitized by ^jOOQle 


sos’ head, and Lippold therefore notes in the 
Vatican catalogue that it is impossible to de- 
cide whether the satyr is carrying Dionysos or 
an infant satyr. But even earlier A. Minto had 
used our group, then in the Palazzo Corsini, 
for a reconstruction of the group in an article 
in Ausonia 7 . He considered our group, how- 
ever, to be a Renaissance copy of a lost clas- 
sical prototype. 

The criteria that I have used for dating the 
group have already been dealt with above, and 
I believe that they are reliable. The question 
of the time of the original — both Minto and 
Lippold regard it as an Early Hellenistic work 
— I hope to be able to take up again in an- 
other context. 

Of great interest is a fragment of a head 
under life-size of the so-called Menander type. 
As will be seen from the illustrations (figs. 
6—8) half the head is missing and nothing re- 
mains of the neck. The fragment is 17.5 cm. 
high. It is executed in a white marble with few 
but quite large crystals. This is probably Italic, 
although it might conceivably be marble from 
the Greek islands. The head was acquired from 
an art dealer in Rome in 1959. 

This head, despite its insignificant size, is 
sculptured with great vigour and intensity, and 
it is undoubtedly one of the best replicas of 
the “Menander portrait”. The modelling of the 
eye with engraved iris and hemispherically 
drilled pupil close beneath the lid and the 
drilling work in the hair clearly indicate its 
time — the second half of the second century 
A.D. This late dating of a replica of the famous 
portrait makes the fragment particularly valu- 

It is possible that the head is from a relief, 
although there is no detail on the fragment to 
indicate this. But the size of the head may to 
some extent support a theory of that kind. 

With this new replica before us — probably 
the forty-third in succession — it may be of 

7 Minto, o.c., pp. 96 f., Fig. 5. 


interest, not only for the present writer, to 
take a quick look at the state of the identifica- 
tion question and the progress of the discus- 
sion so far. For more than four decades the 
identification of the so-called Menander por- 
trait has been an archaeological bone of con- 
tention that is really rather disagreeable, be- 
cause it gives an impression of an uncertainty 
in our datings of ancient sculpture which must 
seem shocking but which is fortunately not the 
general rule. 

The contest began in earnest in 1918 when 
Franz Studniczka tried to show in his article 
Das Bildnis Menanders 8 that the portrait in 
question represents the Greek comedy-writer 
Menander, who died in 291 B.C. This was an 
opinion long held by the well-known German 
art-archaeologist; he had both spoken and 
written about it as early as the 1890’s and now 
he was publishing a more detailed argumenta- 
tion. He took as his starting-point the inscrip- 
tion material, which was not particularly copi- 
ous but which included the base of a statue 
found in the Dionysos theatre in Athens bear- 
ing the inscription MENANDPOI and the in- 
formation that Kephisodotos and Timarchos 
were the artists. These may conceivably be 
identical with Praxiteles' famous sons, who 
were contemporaries of Menander, and Stud- 
niczka has good grounds for assuming that the 
statue was set up during the last few years of 
Menander’s life or possibly shortly after his 
death. Thus a statue dating from the two 
hundred and nineties B.C. once stood on this 
extant base, and it is with this missing work 
that Studniczka connects the famous portrait 
with the many replicas, which must represent 
a poet, because one of the replicas wears an 
ivy wreath. 

His grounds for this identification, however, 

8 Neue Jahrbiicher fur das klassische Altertum, 
Bd 41, 1918, pp. 1 ff. Cf. J. J. Bernoulli, Griechiscbe 
Ikonographie II, pp. Ill ff. Gisela M. A. Richter. 
Greek Portraits, Coll. Latomus, Vol. XX, pp 38 ff. 

Digitized by 



were undoubtedly weak. They were mainly as 

1. Two imagines clipeatae , shields with por- 
trait busts, whose inscriptions indicate that the 
portraits are of Menander. These ought, of 
course, to be of decisive importance but one 
of them, in any case, is worthless in this con- 
nection. It is now missing but once belonged 
to the Roman iconographer Fulvio Orsini, who 
published it in his book Imagines et elogia viro- 
rum illustrium of 1570. Orsini, or Fulvius Ur- 
sinus, as he calls himself there, was librarian 
and antiquary to the Famese family in Rome, 
a position like Winckelmann’s in the Villa 
Albani. This portrait shield, which only exists 
as a drawing in the 1570 book and in a later 
edition brought out by Ursinus— Gallaeus in 
1598-1607, is totally irrelevant to the pro- 
blem. The two editions show quite a different 
portrait, and neither bears even a remote re- 
semblance to our portrait. I believe that today 
all my colleagues in this field — whatever their 
attitude with regard to the naming question — 
would agree with that. The other portrait shield 
is more interesting. It is in an English collec- 
tion, at Marbury Hall in Cheshire. It is an 
extremely dull and expressionless work of late 
antiquity, probably from the third century, but 
one must admit that Studniczka and his fol- 
lowers are right to the extent that there does 
exist a vague and very general resemblance 
to the famous portrait. This resemblance, how- 
ever, is mainly restricted to the beardlessness 
of both and in some measure to the arrange- 
ment of the hair over the forehead. But bearing 
in mind the fact well known to every icono- 
grapher that an ancient portrait in an inferior 
reproduction can be changed almost beyond 
recognition, we may say that the Marbury Hall 
portrait does not raise any real obstacles to 
an identification of our portrait as a portrait 
of Menander, if such an identification were 
supported by other evidence. But there, un- 
fortunately, matters leave much to be desired. 

2. The portrait occurs in two types of double 
herm, in the one case collocated with a bearded 
Greek philosopher’s head of a type earlier 
named Apollonius of Tyana but now usually 
considered to be a portrait of Homer. There 
are strong grounds for thinking that it may 
possibly represent Hesiod. This double herm 
exists in two or perhaps three authentic re- 
plicas 9 . In the other case the portrait is joined 
in a double herm to the equally famous so- 
called Pseudo-Seneca, who next after the so- 
called Menander has the distinction of being 
preserved in a large number of replicas — at 
present thirty-two I should think. Unfortunate- 
ly, the identification also of these portraits is 
still an unsolved problem 10 . It certainly re- 
presents a poet, because one of the replicas is 
adorned with an ivy wreath, and on stylistic 
grounds the original is likely to have been made 
about 200 B.C. We cannot say more about this 
portrait unfortunately, all attempts at identi- 
fication still being only more or less well- 
-founded conjectures. We must therefore assert 
that the double herms cannot provide any clue 
to the determination of our portrait. Studniczka, 
who only knew the double herm with the 
Pseudo-Seneca, which he — no doubt correctly 
— regarded as the portrait of a Hellenic poet, 
merely came to the conclusion from the double 
herm that our portrait must also represent a 
Hellenic writer, because he is found to be 
joined with one. But this is certainly a com- 
pletely erroneous assumption — there is indeed 
at least one instance of a Roman and a Greek 
being joined in a double herm where the iden- 
tification is assured owing to the inscription 11 . 

• Cf. Bianca Maria Felletti Maj, Museo Nazionale 
Romano, I Ritratti, pp. 20 ff., N. 21. 

10 Cf. B. Strandman, The Pseudo-Seneca Problem, 
Konsthistorisk tidskrift XIX, 1950, pp. 53 ff. All the 
replicas are here noted down, and different possibili- 
ties of identification are discussed. 

11 The double herm of Socrates and Seneca in Ber- 
lin, J. J. Bernoulli, Romische Ikonographie I, pp. 
278 f., Taf. XXIV. 

Digitized by LjOOQle 


Fig. 6. Fragment of head of the so- 
called Menander type. Marble. 
The Throne-Hoist Collection. 
Djursholm . 

But apart from this, the antithesis or the col- 
location of Roman and Greek in pairs was a 
popular motif in Roman art. We need only 
refer to Plutarch’s famous vitae parade lae, in 
which in fact famous Romans and Greeks are 
juxtaposed to form a kind of literary double 

3. Studniczka was of the opinion that the por- 
trait belonged stylistically to the beginning of 
the third century and he looked for stylistic 

parallels in Lysippos’ Apoxyomenos, Agias and 
the portrait of Alexander and also in Polyeuk- 
tos’ statue of Demosthenes dating from 280. 
it is true that the portrait has Lysippan features, 
not least of the Alexander portrait. But on the 
other hand, it is a very personal and individua- 
lized portrait, difficult to imagine during such 
an early epoch. 

No one is likely to deny that these were 
amazingly weak arguments advanced by Stud- 


Digitized by ^jOOQle 

niczka in support of his Menander designation, 
and nothing new has emerged since 1918 to 
support it. 

In the very same year in which Studniczka 
finally published his theory, opposition raised 
its head in the shape of an article by Georg 
Lippold 12 , who associated himself with the 
doubt earlier expressed by Adolf Furtwangler, 
who wanted to identify the so-called Menander 
as a Roman poet. Lippold guessed that it was 
Virgil and his views were followed up and 
further expanded in an article by J. F. Crome 13 . 
Crome’s arguments were mainly as follows: He 
judged the portrait on stylistic grounds to be 

“ Rom. Mitt. XXXIII, 1918, pp. 1 ff. 

13 Reale Accademia Virgiliana di Mantova, Atti e 
Memorie, Nuova Sene Vol. XXIV, 1935, pp. 1 ff. 

a portrait of a Roman from the end of the 
Republic. In view of the large number of re- 
plicas — when Crome wrote there were thirty- 
eight of them — it must represent one of the 
most famous of the Roman poets. Lastly, it is 
collocated in a double herm with the so-called 
Apollonius of Tyana, which Crome — in com- 
mon with perhaps the majority of investigators 
— considered to be a portrait of Homer. No 
Roman poet was better fitted than the writer 
of the Aeneid to form the Latin counterpart of 

There are, as we see, large meshes also in 
this net. The discrepancy as regards the dating 
is naturally alarmingly great, and one wonders 
how such a divergence can be possible. But the 
so-called Menander portrait belongs to a tradi- 

ng. 7. The “Menander” head. Djursholm. 

Fig. 8. The “ Menander ” head. Djursholm. 

Digitized by ^jOOQle 


tion line in Hellenistic portrait art, which be- 
gins with the Alexander portrait by Lysippos 
and ends with the large group of Hellenistic 
portraits of Romans from the last century be- 
fore the Christian era. The portraits of the 
Diadochi belong to this line, the portrait of 
Cicero too. This is a portrait art distinguished 
by ideality and strong feeling in personal inter- 
pretation and by an often magnificent and effec- 
tive style. This trend is, on the whole, quite 
uniform throughout the Hellenistic Age, and 
it is not surprising that works belonging to 
it may be difficult to date. But although this 
line in the portrait art of the Hellenistic period 
has a fairly homogeneous character, it is not 
entirely uninfluenced by the changes in the 
interpretation of art and of persons, and even 
in those portraits which might justifiably be 
called ideal portraits the development tends to- 
wards psychological insight and individualiza- 
tion. From that point of view the portrait, as 
we have mentioned, is scarcely thinkable at the 
beginning of the third century but much more 
likely during the second half of the third cen- 
tury, a dating that has been suggested by 
L. Laurenzi 14 and V. Poulsen 16 . Hence Poulsen 
has wished to identify our unknown writer with 
the court poet Kallimachos of Alexandria, an 
attractive suggestion in many respects, but one 
that does not accord really well with the alto- 
gether unique popularity of our portrait during 
the whole time of the Roman Empire. I soon 
found when working with the Roman portraits 
from the end of the Republic that the so-called 
Menander portrait is readily believable as a 
work from that time 16 . We can cite many good 
stylistic parallels among private portraits during 
this time 17 and also have reason, like Rhys 

14 Ritratti Greci, pp. 139 ff. 

15 Kunstmuseets Arsskrift 1951, pp. 67 ff. 

16 Studien zur Kunstgeschichte der romischen Re- 
public p. 215. 

17 Cf. e.g. the replica in Korfu, Fig. 9, with the 
head in Delos, C. Michalowski, Les portraits hel- 
16nistiques, PI. XXI, or a head in the Museo Nazio- 
nale Romano, Felletti Maj, I Ritratti, 44. Cf. fur- 


Carpenter, to consider the Hellenistic portrait 
of Augustus or rather Octavian, preserved in 
coin-types from the thirties 18 . It is a representa- 
tion of Octavian as omnipotent ruler, created 
in accordance with the tradition of the Alexan- 
der and Diadochi portraits. There is a strong 
resemblance in style between this coin-type and 
the so-called Menander, and we may note that 
the treatment of the hair is the same. What 
could be more natural than that the represen- 
tation of Virgil, the Augustan court poet and 
national bard, should follow the style of the 
Octavian portrait? The combination in a double 
herm with Apollonius of Tyana, irrespective of 
whether this portrait represents Homer or He- 
siod, is also, as B. M. Felletti Maj has pointed 
out 19 , a powerful argument in support of the 
Virgil hypothesis. 

I therefore still feel great sympathy for this 
idea, although I am fully aware that it has not 
been proved. A more thorough examination 
than has hitherto been made of all the replicas 
in an attempt to date the time of each replica 
would be of value. Perhaps they all belong to 
the time of the Roman Empire. The abundance 
of replicas cannot be due to chance but must 
be connected with the importance of the person 
portrayed. One thinks in this connection of the 
dominant influence exerted by Virgil on Roman 
educational life. This was primarily due to the 
schools, where he was studied already at the 
elementary stage and provided material for 
exercises in grammar and metrics. Study con- 
tinued in the higher classes and his importance 
was great in the schools of rhetoric 20 . Even 
Augustinus declares how living he still was in 
the minds of all educated people 21 . In schools, 
gymnasia and libraries his likeness was often 

ther R. Herbig, Zum Menander- Vergil Problem, Rom. 
Mitt. LIX, 1944-46, pp. 77 ff. 

18 A contribution to the Vergil-Menander contro- 
versy, Hesperia XX, 1951, pp. 34 ff. 

18 Felletti Maj, o.c., p. 21. 

18 Schanz-Hosius, Geschichte der romischen Lite- 
ratur II, pp. 98 ff. 

II Civ. dei 1, 13. 

Digitized by 


Fig. 9. “Menander ” . Marble. Museum of Corfu. 

to be seen 22 , and indeed nothing would be more 
natural than to find that his portrait in par- 
ticular has been preserved in an unusually large 
number of replicas. The new replica in Throne- 
Hoist’s collection to some extent supports the 
Virgil theory because it is so late. Menander, 
it is true, was popular throughout classical an- 
tiquity but owing to his language was not as 
highly valued by the Atticistic purists of the 
second century 28 . It is also rather uncommon 
for a Greek poet’s or philosopher’s portrait from 
late classical or Hellenistic times to be supple- 
mented in a copy from the time of the Roman 
Empire by the drilling and engraving of pupil 

“ Cf. Suetonius, Gaius Caligula 34, luvenalis sat. 
VII, 225 ff. 

u W. Schmid, Wilhelm von Christs Geschichte der 
griechiscben Literatur (6. Aufl.), pp. 45 f. 

and iris. In a copy of a Roman portrait from 
the early Empire period an addition of that 
kind would seem more natural. 

Now if the so-called Menander really is 
Virgil, then the portrait in the Ny Carlsberg 
Glyptotek recently named Virgil by Vagn Poul- 
sen cannot represent the same poet 24 . It is a 
portrait in four replicas, one of which is com- 
bined in a double herm with the so-called 
Pseudo-Seneca. But for the identification of 
this interesting portrait from the end of the 
Republic, to which Poulsen has drawn atten- 
tion, there are of course other possibilities, too. 
Suetonius’ characterization of Virgil’s appear- 
ance, that he had a countrified look, fits in to 
some extent with the Copenhagen portrait. But 
on the other hand, it is improbable that a 
sculptor would have stressed such a feature 
when he was creating the likeness of the na- 
tional bard. 

It is quite natural for us to pass on from the 
“Menander portrait” to one of the Roman por- 
traits in the collection, the one shown in figs. 
10—11. It is still full of living Hellenism and 
yet definitely belongs to a Roman milieu. It 
is one of the first acquisitions in the collection 
and was bought in 1937 from the Norwegian 
painter L. O. Ravensberg, who obtained it in 

This work is a head in natural size. Its height 
is 22.5 cm., the total height of the piece in- 
cluding the neck being 26.3 cm. It is executed 
in marble, which is white with very small 
crystals and has a light yellowish brown patina. 
The surface looks as though it were pitted with 
small corrosion holes in places, especially on 
the nose and brow and in the hair, which is 
hardly a natural condition for marble. On 
the left side of the crown of the head a lump 
has been corroded away or knocked off and 
there the marble seems flaky. The material has 
the character of marble closely related to lime- 

54 Meddelelser fra Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 1958, 
pp. 1 ff. 

Digitized by ^jOOQle 


Fig. 11. The head shown in Fig. 10. 

Fig. 12. Roman portrait. Marble. Museo Nazionale, 

stone of, for instance, travertine type. The tip 
of the nose is fractured and the neck broken 
off - with a cut surface — at the base. A 
broken part at the back of the neck has a raised 
edge, indicating that there was originally a 
drapery here, probably of a toga. 

The back of the head is only coarsely carved 
with very slight hair marking. The crown is 
bald, framed by the curved, thick locks of hair 
at the temples. A few sparse locks at the back 
of the crown are combed forwards. Deep fur- 
rows in the cheeks frame the protruding mouth. 
The neck is quite scraggy, with pronounced 
tendons and Adam’s apple. 

The decisive effect, when confronted with 
this head, is its gentleness and melancholy, the 

sensitive form language which finds expression 
particularly in the almost femininely soft and 
well-shaped mouth. But it is also clear and 
simple in structure, with a sculptural purity 
and strength that puts it among works in the 
strong Hellenistic tradition of the final phase 
of the Republic. It has nothing of the exag- 
gerated illusionism characterizing the Flavian 
portrait, which also suggests itself perhaps 
when one at a first glance attempts to discover 
the time of this head. 

There are many closely related works in the 
Hellenistic group of Roman portraits from 
the last century B.C., both in the east and in 
the purely Roman milieu. A portrait in the 
British Museum from Rhodes 25 is an example 

Fig. 10. Roman portrait. Marble. The Throne- 
Hoist Collection , Djursholm. 

25 A. H. Smith, Catalogue of Sculpture III, 1965. 
R. Hinks, Greek and Roman Portrait-Sculpture, p. 15. 
Vessberg, Studien, p. 214, Taf. LI:2. 

Digitized by 


Fig. 13. Roman portrait. Marble. The Throne-Hoist Fig. 14. The head shown in Fig. 13. 
Collection , Djursholm. 

Fig. 15. Tombstone with busts of 
Pinarius Lanteros and Myrsine . 
Marble. Museo delle Terme, Rome . 


Digitized by 


from the east with the same sensitive, living 
surface and the same gentle contrast between 
the hair and the skin of the face. Among the 
Roman portraits of special note are a well- 
known portrait in Naples 26 (fig. 12) with a re- 
plica in the Louvre, one of the “great uniden- 
tified” who have been given different names, 
a head in the Lateran which A. Giuliano, in- 
terestingly enough, has compared with the 
Menander portrait 27 , and a head in the Vati- 
can 28 . A particularly striking parallel is a head 
in the Lateran 29 that once formed part of a 
historical relief from the middle of the last 
century B.C. Here there is agreement feature 
by feature: the treatment of the hair, the shape 
of the forehead and eyebrows, the drawing of 
the eye, and the soft drooping mouth. It should 
be pointed out that our head also has a con- 
nection with the Roman-realistic line in the 
portrait art of the end of the Republic 30 . The 
lean stringy throat particularly recalls portraits 
in this group, where it is often a strongly accen- 
tuated feature, not least in the portraits of 
Caesar from the middle of the century. Our 
portrait is also likely to belong to this time, 
c. 50 B.C. 

It is interesting to compare our Hellenized 
Roman with the prosaic workaday type exem- 
plified by the head in figs. 13—14. There is 
not much idealism or sentiment in these slightly 
trivial but surely sculptured features. This is a 
head in Italic marble with a yellow patina, 
broken right across the neck. The total height 
of the piece is 26 cm. The tip of the nose is 
fractured, but otherwise, as we see from the 
picture, the head is well preserved. 

*• Guida Ruesch, 1101. A. Hekler, Die Bildnis- 
kunst der Griechen und Romer, 148a. Vessberg, Stu- 
dien, pp. 212 f., Taf. L. 

87 A. Giuliano, Catalog© dei ritratti Romani del 
Museo Profano Lateranense, 6, Taw. 5—6. 

w G. Kaschnitz-Weinberg, Sculture del Magaz- 
zino del Museo Vaticano, Nr. 591, Taf. 95. Vessberg, 
Studien, p. 223, Taf. 60. 

*• A. J. B. Wace, P.B.S. HI, 1905, p. 287, PI. XXX, 
Fig. 3. Vessberg, Studien, p. 190, Taf. XXXII: 1. 

80 Cf. e.g. Vessberg, Studien, Taf. LXI. 

Again we have before us a “Republican” 
but of the soberly matter-of-fact Roman type. 
The only very roughly sketched hair, the well- 
defined protruding mouth and the shrivelled 
neck with its strongly marked tendons are 
characteristic features of this portrait, which 
has very close parallels particularly on the tomb 
reliefs from the end of the Republic. I will 
compare it especially with the portrait of Pina- 
rius Lanteros on a relief in the Museo delle 
Terme 31 (fig. 15). It shows a startling resem- 
blance to our head in both physiognomy and 
style. They are so much alike that we have 
every reason to assume that they are works 
of the same artist or workshop. Consequently, 
the head also goes with two other tomb reliefs 
which I have earlier put together with the 
above-mentioned relief in the Museo delle 
Terme to form a group, namely a relief in the 
Villa Colonna with portraits of Manlia Rufa 
and Manlius Stephanus 32 and another relief in 
the Museo delle Terme, previously located in 
the Villa Mattei, with busts of one man and 
two women 33 . All these reliefs certainly come 
from the same workshop. The male portraits 
on these reliefs are distinguished by rigidity 
and firmness of structure, and they exhibit the 
physiognomical affinity which throughout the 
centuries characterizes portraits from the same 
epoch. They are from the time of transition to 
the Empire period, the relief bearing the por- 
trait of Pinarius Lanteros, which corresponds 
so remarkably well with the head we are now 
considering, having earlier been dated by me 
to c. 30 B. C. 

The large bronze head in figs. 16—20 is un- 
doubtedly one of the most noteworthy acquisi- 
tions in Throne-Hoist’s collection. It was pur- 
chased in 1957 in Lucerne at a sale of objects 
from Jacob Hirsch’s collection. 

« Vessberg, Studien, p. 199, Taf. XXXVIII:3. 

88 Vessberg, Studien, pp. 198 ff., Taf. XXXVIII: 1. 
88 F. W. Goethert, Zur Kunst der rom. Republik, 
p. 49. Vessberg, Studien, pp. 198 f., Taf. XXXVIII:2. 


Digitized by kjooole 

I The head, which is broken off at the upper 
part of the neck, is of colossal size. Its height 
is 44 cm., the maximum width ert face being 
32 cm. and in profile 36.5 cm. The thickness 
of the sheet-bronze is 0.8— 1.0 cm. on the fore- 
head, 0.4— 0.8 cm. at the neck and 0.4— 1.0 
cm. in the hair. Most of the top of the head 
is missing. There is a crack about 20 cm. long 
on the left side of the head, behind the ear. 
There are also cracks and small holes in the 
whiskers on the left side of the head and a 
crack about 10 cm. long on the right side of 
the back of the head. The hair and beard on 
the right side are flattened, evidently as the 
^result of a blow, and the nose has been bent 
by a blow, too. The left side of the face is 
jslightly worn or weathered, evidently by the 
action of water. There are numerous incrusta- 
tions in the hair. But as a whole this magnificent 
head is well preserved in all its splendour, 
which is specially brought out by the gilding, 
most of which remains. The gilding is par- 
ticularly well preserved in the hair, notably on 
the right side of the back of the head, and also 
on the forehead, eyes, cheeks nearest the nose, 
moustache, lips and chin-beard. 

The eyes have engraved irises and the pupils 
are executed as oval depressions. 

According to information supplied by Herr 
Paul Viktor Suppan of Vienna, to whose family 
the head belonged before it was acquired by 
Dr. Jacob Hirsch, it was found in the Tiber 
in Rome about 1770—1790 and was at first 
owned by the Cardinal Schonbom who was 
attached to the court of Ferdinand IV in 

The colossal size indicates that it is the 
portrait of an Emperor, and there is no doubt 
that it bears the features of Antoninus Pius, 
although when first weighing the possibilities 
one might also think of Hadrian or Septimius 
Severus. But the small tufts or small curls of 

J6. Portrait of Antoninus Pius. Bronze. The 
Throne-Hoist Collection , Djursholm. 

hair, the bulging forehead and the very strong 
chin are essential traits in the image of Antoni- 
nus Pius that are not found in the others; the 
mild, sagacious and what might be described 
as commonplace look is also extremely charac- 
teristic. The portraits of Antoninus Pius have 
prominent thick front hair with two groups of 
locks particularly marked 34 . These may be 
given a highly significant form, almost like a 
crayfish’s claw 35 , as for instance in a portrait 
in the Museo Nazionale in Naples or the por- 
trait in the Sala a Croce Greca in the Vatican. 
But in our portrait the locks are modelled 
throughout as thick, entirely distinct “spiral 
rolls”, and this also applies to the frontal hair. 
This treatment of the hair is characteristic of 
a group of late Antoninus portraits which 
M. Wegner has brought together and which in 
their style are closely linked to the portraits 
of Marcus Aurelius 36 , particularly the portraits 
of the 160’s, to which the equestrian statue 
on the Capitol probably also belongs. There 
the type of hair has changed completely to 
small distinct spiral locks, a type of hair treat- 
ment wholly foreign to Hadrian’s time and not 
found either in the early portraits of Antoninus 
Pius. If we look at the coin-types we can see 
that the “spiral lock hair” first appears in the 
youthful effigies of Marcus Aurelius on Anto- 
ninus Pius’ coins 37 . In the portraits of Anto- 
ninus Pius which may reliably be dated to early 
coin-series, it does not however occur, but we 
find a tendency to a similar treatment of the 
hair in later coin-series, those issued after 
145 38 . 

It should be noted that the hair in small 
curls, the “spiral lock hair”, is also present in 

84 M. Wegner, Die Herrscherbildnisse in antoni- 
nischer Zeit, p. 25, Taf. 4b. 

85 Wegner, o.c., p. 22, Taf. 4a. 

86 Wegner, o.c., pp. 24 ff. 

87 Cf. e.g. H. Mattingly, Coins of the Roman 
Empire in the British Museum IV, PI. 3, 17—20, 
aurei and denarii of 139 A.D. 

** Cf. e.g. Mattingly, o.c. IV, PI. 40:1-2, 41:1, 
42:10, 45:2. 

Digitized by LjOoq le 


Fig. 17. Antoninus Pius. Bronze. 
The Throne-Hoist Collection , 

the portraits of Septimius Severus. We can 
perhaps say that our bronze head has a certain 
general resemblance to the portraits of Severus. 
But the differences are fundamental and con- 
spicuous if we compare the coin-types 39 . The 
head of Septimius Severus is short and robust, 
that of Antoninus Pius long. The hair of the 
former has a bushier and more untidy form, 
also the beard, which in the case of Septimius 
Severus is divided into long tongues or tufts. 
If we compare with portraits of Severus sculp- 
tured in the round, the admirable bronze statue 

39 Cf. regarding the Severus portraits on coins 
Mattingly, o.c. V, PI. 5 ff. 

in Nicosia for instance 40 , we can see among 
other things that Septimius Severus has a 
weaker, narrower chin. His look also reveals 
an entirely different person. It is a little squint- 
ing and unsure, contrasting strongly with Anto- 
ninus Pius' steady, sagacious look. 

We can therefore identify our bronze head 
with absolute certainty as a portrait of Anto- 
ninus Pius. In his treatment of the iconography 
of this Emperor, M. Wegner has divided the 
portraits of Antoninus into three chrono- 
logically distinct groups, where the treatment 

40 P. Dikaios, A Guide to the Cyprus Museum, p. 
111. S.C.E. IV:3, PL XXII. 


Digitized by LjOOQle 

of the hair was the determining factor 41 . Our 
bronze head comes nearest to the third of these 
groups, a group of late portraits in which the 
hair is entirely moulded as a “Lockenrollen- 
werk” without tongues or loose tufts. This is 
a hair style which bridges over to the time of 
Marcus Aurelius and which in itself shows that 
the group is late and belongs to the last years 
of Antoninus Pius’ reign or may possibly be 
posthumous. But, in addition, the portraits 
exhibit certain marked features of old age. This 
applies to some extent also to our bronze head. 
The furrows of the brow are more than usually 
accentuated and the face has something of the 
calm and resignation of an old man. 

The colossal size most probably indicates 
that the head was part of a statue, although of 
course a bust is also a possibility. The coins 
have preserved various statuary representations 
of Antoninus Pius. He is portrayed in armour 
with a lance in his hand 42 , sacrificing in the 
toga and with covered head 43 , in the toga with 
the terrestrial globe in his hand 44 , and on horse- 
back 4 *. He is represented as divus enthroned 
with a sceptre in his left hand and a spray in 
his right 46 , and we also have on the coins a 
picture of the column surmounted by a statue 
which Marcus Aurelius erected to the memory 
of his predecessor 47 . He is there depicted hold- 
ing a sceptre and presumably togatus. Among 
these representations we look for a statuary 
motif in which the slight turn to the right would 
be particularly well justified. It is so especially 
in one, the allocutio motif. The raised right arm 
in oratorical pose makes a slight orientation of 
the head to the right quite natural. Among 
the statuary motifs that have been mentioned 
on the coins there is only one showing the 

41 Die Herrscherbildnisse in antoninischer Zeit, pp. 
21 ff. 

4i Mattinlgy, o.c. IV, PI. 6:17—18. 

« Mattingly, o.c. IV, PI. 13:10-11. 

44 Mattingly, o.c. IV, PI. 16:19. 

45 Mattingly, o.c. IV, PI. 16:6, 46:1. 

48 Mattingly, o.c. IV, PI. 54:16. 

47 Mattingly, o.c. IV, PI. 54:17. 

Emperor with the allocutio gesture and that is , 
the equestrian statue. The statue of Marcus 
Aurelius on the Capitol exhibits the same slight 
inclination to the right as our bronze head, 
an inclination motivated by the oratorical 
gesture with the right arm. 

The statue of Marcus Aurelius and our 
head come very close to each other in style, 
too, and there is a marked resemblance in 
the facture of the heads 48 . We should note 
especially the identical treatment of the hair 
in the form of “bosses”, divided by one or two 
furrows or grooves. Strikingly similar is the 
moulding of the eyebrows, which are done in 
relief, and the moustache. The eyebrows also 
have the same arched undulating line. The rich , 
plastic inflections of the surface with contrasting 
light and shade are repeated in both, although 
more moderately in the Antoninus Pius por- 
trait, which is more influenced by an older 
tradition. It seems probable to me that these 
two works come from the same workshop and 
they cannot be far distant from each other in 
time. An assumption of this kind is supported 
by the individual datings. We have found that 
the Antoninus Pius portrait was made during] 
the last years of the Emperor’s reign or pos- 
sibly after his death. The equestrian statue on ; 
the Capitol belongs without doubt to the earlier 
years of Marcus Aurelius’ reign and has been 
dated by Wegner to the period between 164 
and 166 40 . 

Whether the head of Antoninus Pius was 
part of an equestrian statue or an ordinary 
statue cannot be determined with certainty. In 
the latter case it may have been a statue in 
armour, a statue in a toga or perhaps most 
likely of all a heroizing statue in the nude with 

48 Cf. K. Kluge— K. Lehmann-Hartleben, Die 
antiken Grossbronzen III, Taf. XII. Wegner, o.c, 
Taf. 23. 

49 Wegner, o.c., p. 42. 

Fig. 21. Roman portrait bust. 3rd cent . A.D. Tto 
Throne-Hoist Collection , Djursholm . 


Digitized by LjOOQle 

Fig. 22. Portrait of Claudius Gothicus. Medallion. Fig. 23. Portrait of Carinus. Medallion. 2:1. Bale 
1.4:1. Vienna. 

mantle drapery as in the bronze statue with 
the head of Septimius Severus in Brussels 50 . 
Where in Rome the statue of Antoninus Pius 
was erected, when gleaming with gold it was 
completed about 160, is also uncertain. But 
the place of its finding in the Tiber permits a 
guess that it stood — in fact like the above- 
mentioned statue in Brussels — in Hadrian’s 
mausoleum, where Antoninus Pius’ tomb was 
also placed. Perhaps the head found its way 
into the Tiber already in the time of Justinian 
on the occasion when the Goths under Vitiges 
laid siege to Rome in 537 and stormed the 
moles Hadriani. Then the besieged defended 
themselves by hurling statues down onto the 

The male bust in fig. 21 is a most impressive 
representative of its epoch in the collection — 
both through its martial accessories and its 
gravity and tense expression. It is a portrait 

50 Kluge-Lehmann-Hartleben, o.c. Ill, Taf. XXX. 

of a middle-aged man with lean features and 
intense gaze, close-cut hair and beard and a 
coarse protruding mouth with thick lips. The 
bust is clad in armour with paludamentum, 
which is fastened with a button, decorated with 
a rosette, on the right shoulder. The breast part 
is hollowed out at the back and has a sculp- 
tured support. The material is marble, white 
with a yellow patina. It is rich in very small 
crystals and is likely to be of Italic origin. The 
total height of the bust is 64 cm., the height 
of the head being 25 cm. It was bought in 
1958 from a Swiss art-dealer. 

Here we have before us one of the third 
century generals, the paludamentum showing 
that he is a military commander. There is 
severity and something of impatience and ner- 
vous tension in his features that admirably 
illustrates the hectic pulse of the century. The 
hair encloses the skull like a calotte and is 
modelled in finely chiselled “strands”. At the 
back of the head it is more sketchily done, but 
it is nevertheless arranged with a distinct 
middle-parting. The pupils in the large eyes, 


Digitized by ^jOOQle 

rershadowed by powerful eyebrows, are drilled 
an-shaped. The fashion of the hair and 
tard, the lean features and the strong realism 
ing to mind particularly one of the third cen- 
ry's Imperial effigies on coins, namely the 
>rtrait of Claudius Gothicus (fig. 22) 51 . The 
laracteristic, thick, bushy beard on the cheeks 
id under the chin is still more marked on the 

51 B. M. Felletti Maj, Iconografia Romana Im- 
riale da Severo Alessandro a M. Aurelio Carino, 
iv. XLIX:169. Here reproduced as fig. 22. 

coin-types of Carinus (fig. 23) 52 . This is a 
fashion in beards largely inherited from Gal- 
lienic times and characterizing many portraits 
from post-Gallienic times 53 . In consideration of 
the Emperor effigies here compared, of which 
the portrait of Claudius in particular seems to 
be the type-forming ruler portrait in this case, 
the bust should be dated to 265—285 A.D. 

“ Felletti Maj, o.c., Tav. LVII:201. Here re- 
p rod lied as fig. 23. 

“ H. P. L’Orange, Studien zur Geschichte des 
spatantiken Portrats, pp. 35 f. 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



O. Ekberg, pp. 56, 58, 59 (Fig. 18). 

J. Felbermeyer, pp. 43—44 (Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, 
Rom, Neg. 42.59, 42.70). 

N. Lagergren, pp. 6—35, 48—49, 54 (Figs. 13—14), 

59 (Figs. 19-20). 

Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, p. 41. 


B. Millberg. 

Digitized by ^jOOQle 

Digitized by 

Price: 16 Sw. crowns 

Digitized by 




yiANI-Uht) UbKARI 

btC SJ 1964 


Number 3 1963 

Digitized by